Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 14

Robin Reece
Hey so I just read a book and there isn't a page for the author. I've only been using wikipedia for about a week so I was wanting some help with making this page. I have gathered enough information about him to make a page I just lack the knowledge to do so. If you want to look at the author this is the link to his book i just downloaded. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B013H0ZVEO?keywords=James%20Yarrow&qid=1438821330&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstubbs72 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Editor has made a request at requested articles. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"You must select editors from the list at random"
This wording is asking the unprovable -- I could easily select 6 names without researching them and just happen to select 6 people who, had I researched them, I would have known were going to pick my side in the dispute. The upshot is that to select a safely "random" list of users, I would have to research their POV in order to get a variety -- but at that point, it isn't random, is it?

For me, this wording makes using the service impossible. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new RFC template
Moved to Template talk:Rfc Gpeja (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of RfC template in a deletion discussion
I've never seen this before, but Rupert Loup has added an RfC template to Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah. Is this appropriate? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I replied at the AfD page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Russia or Russian Federation?
I'm not entirely sure if this should go here but here goes:

Should Russia be called Russia or Russian Federation? Here there has been a discussion about that because on the page it's called Russia in in this section. Catmando999  Check out his talk page!  21:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Russia name to use.


 * Gizmocorot (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Russia per WP:COMMONNAME. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 01:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait,

You said I was not referring to an article's title I was referring to it in the list. Catmando999  Check out his talk page!  05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you substitute United Kingdom / United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or United States / United States of America in your question I believe you'll see the answer is fairly obvious. Bazj (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Logo Question
The RFC regarding changing the logo for Wikipedia's 5 millionth article has currently been open for over thirty days. We currently have over 4,982,000 articles, and we will need to discuss the specificities of the logo design and any other celebratory aspects if this RfC passes. I would prefer that the RfC is closed in the near future so that we can have enough time to discuss the logo design should the RfC pass. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So what is your question? Catmando999   Check out his talk page!  07:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Need opinion of thirds over a dispute
Skopje

Although Albanian is an official language in the capital of FYROM, and the Ohrid pact is enforced implementing bilinguism over its territory, I am not allowed to put the Albanian spelling (Shkupi) in the incipit. Edits are reverted and my objections are ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herakliu (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but I think it's almost impossible to hold this name permanent on the page because of macedonian nationalists. I heard of a special status for pages whith frequent vandalism, but I have no clue how to initiate such a thing... The best may be to just ignore it. ;) --Ermanarich (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Snowded and British Empire
User Snowded repeadetly denies and reverts edits in British Empire ignoring sources supporting it. He ignored the sources which point out that Britain was a Superpower, even if it was in it's latter stages (I've put the sources at the bottom just in case). Despite this, he ignores the facts and even deletes every grammatical error that editors make in the page such as mines and 's fixes. He stubbornly believes that keeping order is better than to improve the page. Don't get me wrong, I believe order should be implemented, but Snowded takes things too far to the extent of not letting anyone make an edit to the page. I perceived Snowded has a personal issue with me (not sure why) as can be seen with his edit summaries addressing me and him deleting my messages, something he never did to other users,. The whole discussion can be seen here.

,, , , , , , ,

Hope this comes to a resolution. (N0n3up (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC))


 * This is not the place to post requests for dispute resolution and requests made here will ordinarily be ignored. Please see DR for your options but, whichever path you choose, be sure to thoroughly read the instructions at that venue. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Imperialism in History of Northern Nigeria
Sorry, but is the colonial Flag of the Northern Nigeria Protectorate really the right flag for the complete History of Northern Nigeria? It's even on the page of the Kanem-Bornu Empire. Seems a bit imperialistic to me to put a colonial flag over the complete history of an region which is as double as big as poland. In my opinion, it should be removed as soon as possible!--Ermanarich (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you just wish to post a comment or request about article content, the place to do that is at the article talk page(s) or just fix the problem yourself. If you've already tried to do so and have become embroiled in a dispute this is not the place to post requests for dispute resolution and requests made here will ordinarily be ignored. Please see DR for your options but, whichever path you choose, be sure to thoroughly read the instructions at that venue. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I already posted it there (and there is also an ignored post by another one on the Kanem-Bornu-page) but I don't think that it will find regard there. I just searched for a bigger portal to dicuss this problem. After posting it here I realized that this is the wrong section. I just really don't know where to go with this problem, because my english ain't the best and I'm not very familiar with the organisation of Wikipedia. Sorry :/--Ermanarich (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Death of Wikipedian Piotr Domaradzki (User:Belissarius)
Today, November 8, 2015, is the funeral of longtime Wikipedian Piotr Domaradzki, a Polish-American newspaperman whose (posthumous) biographical entry was created on November 6. Under section header "Wikipedia activity", the article included the following text: "Under the user name pl:Wikipedysta:Belissarius, Piotr Domaradzki was a prolific and multifaceted contributor on numerous topics in the Polish Wikipedia, where his first edit was on September 26, 2004 and his final two edits were made on the day of the fatal fire, October 20, 2015. On his user page, he wrote: "In private life Peter K. Domaradzki (1946). Historian of military realm and journalist intertwined with Gdańsk, but since many years (1985) living in Chicago in USA. On Polish Wikipedia I started officially editing on 25 September 2004." On October 21, 2011, under new section header "Spis" ("List") he wrote: "When someday I depart from Wikipedia, and such will occur sooner or later, at least this writ will remain after me:" On February 6, 2014, he revised it to state: "When I depart from Wikipedia, and such will occur rather sooner than later, at least this writ will remain after me:"  He then listed the articles that he created or translated for the Polish Wikipedia. Domaradzki also contributed (as User:Belissarius) to the English Wikipedia and was active in WikiProject Poland and WikiProject Military history. He frequently contributed to Wikimedia Commons, uploading photographs and drawings. He made over 110,000 edits to various Wikimedia projects."

An appreciation of his life (by Wikimedia Polska Association members Natalia Szafran-Kozakowska and Krzysztof Machocki), published in Chicago's Dziennik Związkowy (Alliance Daily), the oldest and largest Polish language newspaper in the United States, for which he served as editor-in-chief from 2009 to 2013, described him as a pillar of the Wikipedia community whose entries were so well written that granting them the "good article medal" was a mere formality (Talk:Piotr Domaradzki). A link to the tribute [in Polish (readers may cut-and-paste it into Google translate)] is here.

Although Piotr Domaradzki's Wikipedia activity was a major part of his life's work and, according to his words, his legacy, the question has arisen whether it is appropriate for such self-referential text to be part of a subject's biographical entry. Since a number of departed Wikipedians have been sufficiently notable to merit articles of their own, it would seem fitting for us, as a community, to discuss this matter and express our views. The most appropriate venue would seem to be Talk:Piotr Domaradzki, although other, more general venues, may also be brought into the discussion. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisting an RfC
Is it possible to relist an RfC? I tried to do so at Talk:Turks in Bulgaria, which initially seemed to work but then the bot removed the RfC template as expired. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Probaly not. Catmando999   Check out his talk page!  20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry, this reply is doubtless too late for you, but it is possible. See the instructions about "extending" the date.  You have to change the date stamp, to trick the bot into thinking that you started it recently.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Request manual edit to fix links from RFC/A to RFC
The wikilinks from the transcluded pages WP:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law and WP:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature, and media to the RFC at Talk:Watchdog.org are broken, they are not going to the RFC section on the talk page. Maybe the long section heading broke the rfc template expansion? Today unfortunately an editor summoned by bot left in confusion without commenting on the RFC. Can you please help? Thank you! Hugh (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why removed from list?
My request was added on 7 January and removed on 9th without any input from an uninvolved editor. Why? HerkusMonte (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert on this, but it was removed by the maintenance bot, not by an editor, and I rather suspect that it was because the talk page where it was posted was moved to a new name a few hours after you made the RFC request, which caused the bot to believe that the RFC tag had been removed and it thus unlisted it. I'm not sure of any of that, but it seems highly likely. This is, again, a guess, but you can probably get it reposed by removing the current RFC tags (and you only really need one, not three) and putting a new one on that section. Someone more familiar with how the bot works may, however, say this is all wrong. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * HerkusMonte, I've re-formatted the section, and it might work better now. Please ping me if it doesn't get listed within the next couple of hours.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on Wikiprojects - a hijacking strategy
Background: I have been participating in wp: WikiProject Breakfast for several years. WP-Breakfast has always had very sparse discussion and when FLOW was looking for volunteer wikiprojects to test the software, I was instrumental in getting discussion there converted to FLOW. Since FLOW appeared to have serious software bugs, discussion was carried on in spurts of activity. However, recently a group of Wikiproject-outsiders suddenly materialized at WP-Breakfast for the sole purpose of running an RFC to stop the use of FLOW. The RFC squeeked through with a small vocal minority of editors who were never around before to contribute to any testing, and when I objected  to this process and tried to ask questions I was  told to go off and read wp:RFC.

If don't believe that this process which allows vocal minorities who happen to know all the correct buzzwords to hijack direction is in the spirit of wikipedia. Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * I was the one who pointed you to WP:RFC and suggested you read it, for the purpose of informing you what a RFC is. Let me be perfectly clear what a RFC is. RFC stands for "Requests for comment". The very first paragraph says "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors. The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions."


 * What can we learn from reading this? Well its normal when a number of outside editors shows up at a RFC. Thats the purpose of a RFC, to get outside input on a question. Most of the time because there is an impasse with the editors on the page already. Unless you have some proof of WP:CANVASSING, that is the editors were specifically targeted and invited to the RFC based on how they would respond. Pointing out that the people who commented on the RFC were from outside is like pointing out that there are fish in the sea. Secondly, I know of no policy that places a specific number on the number of people that needs to comment before a RFC can be said to come to consensus. The rule is they run for 30 days, this one ran more, and that they are closed by someone who is uninvolved. I have never even seen the page before reading the RFC to close it. By your own words "WP-Breakfast has always had very sparse discussion". We are not going to see large groups of people responding. But the RFC was on the projects talk page, that page was the subject of the RFC. There is no need for a large group. The 10 or so responders are enough. So far I have not seen you point to one policy, guideline, or diff for what you are now placing on uninvolved pages, that can be considered forum shopping. I think it would be in your own best interests for you to find some policy, guideline, or diff soon.  AlbinoFerret  07:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have learnt, again, that wikipedia is a bureaucracy where a small minority of editors who spend their time making up the convoluted system of rules and regulations are those who decide things for the rest of us, never mind common sense or the philosophy on which Wikipedia was built. At this point I concede defeat and will let the rest of the this vast community have their say. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , A couple of points from an un-involved bystander - Do you not see the contradiction between your 2 complaints:
 * Setting aside your personal investment of time/effort in FLOW - is it serving the needs of wp:WikiProject Breakfast? - Do you expect a discussion at wt:WikiProject Breakfast to be conducted for the benefit of Breakfast or of FLOW?
 * An RFC is an open request for comment, I don't think you can complain when "outsiders" offer comments at odds with your "small minority of editors". Regards, Bazj (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In reference to you saying "wikipedia is a bureaucracy where a small minority of editors who spend their time making up the convoluted system of rules and regulations are those who decide things for the rest of us, never mind common sense or the philosophy on which Wikipedia was built" (and this does not reference the issue of the RFC at the WikiProject, but only that statement): What you fail to see is that Wikipedia is a community of users and, just like the community where you live, some folks contribute to the community by participating in civic projects (for example, by attending and speaking at City Council meetings or serving on boards or commissions), others contribute to the economy by working, and others just live there. Anyone, however, can do any of those things. The "small minority" to which you refer would include you if you cared to join in, but just like in your city, if you don't care to join in then you either have to live by the policies that are adopted, argue for their inapplicability in particular situations, or decide to join in to get them changed. In fact, the barrier to entry into participating in those decisions is much smaller here than in the real world. All you have to do is to go to the talk page of the policy or guideline you think needs to be changed and propose the change. Why so many and so complex policies? Again it's the same reason as the real world: We get tired of addressing the same issues again and again and policies not only provide a standard answer, but they provide a consistent answer so that the same issue or question is not answered one way in one place and a different way in another place (with the "losers" in both places then yelling, "See, we were right, it was done our way over there!"). But each time you propose a policy, questions then arise how that policy is to be applied in particular situations. So for the same reason the policy was created in the first place, new sub-policies are formed and the "rules" become increasingly complex. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Setting aside your personal investment of time/effort in FLOW - is it serving the needs of wp:WikiProject Breakfast? - Do you expect a discussion at wt:WikiProject Breakfast to be conducted for the benefit of Breakfast or of FLOW?
 * An RFC is an open request for comment, I don't think you can complain when "outsiders" offer comments at odds with your "small minority of editors". Regards, Bazj (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In reference to you saying "wikipedia is a bureaucracy where a small minority of editors who spend their time making up the convoluted system of rules and regulations are those who decide things for the rest of us, never mind common sense or the philosophy on which Wikipedia was built" (and this does not reference the issue of the RFC at the WikiProject, but only that statement): What you fail to see is that Wikipedia is a community of users and, just like the community where you live, some folks contribute to the community by participating in civic projects (for example, by attending and speaking at City Council meetings or serving on boards or commissions), others contribute to the economy by working, and others just live there. Anyone, however, can do any of those things. The "small minority" to which you refer would include you if you cared to join in, but just like in your city, if you don't care to join in then you either have to live by the policies that are adopted, argue for their inapplicability in particular situations, or decide to join in to get them changed. In fact, the barrier to entry into participating in those decisions is much smaller here than in the real world. All you have to do is to go to the talk page of the policy or guideline you think needs to be changed and propose the change. Why so many and so complex policies? Again it's the same reason as the real world: We get tired of addressing the same issues again and again and policies not only provide a standard answer, but they provide a consistent answer so that the same issue or question is not answered one way in one place and a different way in another place (with the "losers" in both places then yelling, "See, we were right, it was done our way over there!"). But each time you propose a policy, questions then arise how that policy is to be applied in particular situations. So for the same reason the policy was created in the first place, new sub-policies are formed and the "rules" become increasingly complex. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * RFCs are indeed intended to get the views of uninvolved editors. However, the views of uninvolved editors are largely irrelevant when the question is how a small group of editors should work together, per the official guideline at WikiProject Council/Guide.  WikiProjects have significant leeway in their internal operations.
 * In particular, if someone wanted to demonstrate that there is a widespread consensus to disable all Flow pages, then that editor would need to start an RFC on that point. The community can say "nowhere at all", but it cannot say "it's okay in general, but not on the page used by this particular little group".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "the views of uninvolved editors are largely irrelevant when the question is how a small group of editors should work together, per the official guideline at WikiProject Council/Guide." Strange, I can find no mention of "uninvolved" there, and not one of the mentions of "involved" has anything relevant to say about your claim here. Nothing else in that texts seems to support your claim either, but I may have missed the relevant bit. However, the more important point is that, as stated at the MEdiawiki page, there is no consensus to enable Flow anywhere on Wikipedia, and no requests to enable a page will be granted. A long time ago, permission was given to have two temporary tests on two Wikiprojects, and an RfC has now decided that that temporary test is over. The wikiproject members have no authority to override that decision (they are free to participate in the RfC, which they did), and the wikiproject council guide has no bearing on this. The decision to end the Flow trial will also have zero impact on how the project works (or, in general, doesn't), no processes, discussions, ... will be made impossible or even more difficult. Fram (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If Alsee wanted to demonstrate that there is a consensus to remove Flow from all pages, then Alsee should have (a) actually asked that question and (b) done so on a more appropriate page, e.g., a village pump. If there were actually evidence of a community-wide consensus to remove Flow from all pages, then the WikiProject would have to go along with that.  But – and here you may want to go back to the /Guide again – WikiProjects are groups of people, and, like any other social group, they are most effective when given responsibility and authority over their interactions.  "Outsiders" don't get to demand that they work or talk in a particular way.  (All of us can insist that all of us work or talk in a particular way, but that's not what the instant RFC was about.)  You can't use an RFC (or any other process) to force a single WikiProject to change its scope, to change the color on its banner, or anything else.  You can use an RFC to force everyone to stop using the color green in the Wikipedia: namespace, if that's what the community wants to do, but to achieve that, the RFC actually needs to be about everyone, not about six editors who are occasionally working together in a small group.
 * This is all sort of academic: There were bona fide participants on both sides of the question, and strict exclusion of all non-participants might well result in the same result.  (Also, the devs aren't bound by RFCs here anyway.)  But in terms of procedures, and in terms of showing respect for volunteers who are trying to work together, this shouldn't have been an RFC, because the views of non-members/non-participants on the question of how participants ought to be permitted to talk to each other are actually irrelevant.  When you're talking solely about that page (and that RFC was talking solely about that single page), then all that matters is the views of the actual participants.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdong, as community liaison you should know better than to include technically correct but irrelevant and inflammatory aspects like "(Also, the devs aren't bound by RFCs here anyway.)" into such discussions. Yes, the devs can do whatever they like. And all that will achieve is huge problems for the WMF in the end, with the trust some people still have in it completely eroded, with every kind of attempt made to sabotage those devs in such an instance, and (in this particular case) with a huge backlash against Flow as well, as something that the devs would try to impose against our wishes. The Devs aren't boudn by RfCs here, and the enwiki community can decide to fork and leave the devs to play with an dying site. Neither is very relevant to the discussion here.
 * Alsee didn't want to "demonstrate that there is a consensus to remove Flow from all pages", the RfC was about the removal of it from one page only. But every discussion on enwiki has shown a great reluctance to allow Flow anywhere (apart from the one wt:Flow test page probably), and every Flow page that has been challenged (RfC or AfD) has been shut down so far.
 * And I note that finally, you have, as I have become used to, made strong claims in your initial post, "the views of uninvolved editors are largely irrelevant when the question is how a small group of editors should work together, per the official guideline at WikiProject Council/Guide.", which you are unable to back up when challenged, but are unable to retract as well apparently. I know that you were answering here in your personal capacity, just like you happened to propose and defend the Breakfast project for Flow trial in your personal capacity, not your community liaison one, but please remind me why we would support a WMF cronie who regularly spouts nonsense about policies, guidelines, technical issues, or nearly everything that could put the WMF and their pet projects in a bad light, for the position of "community liaison"? Oh right, because you display the same attitude in your "personal" capacity when someone touches your pet project, no matter how dead as a dodo it is.
 * Flow is technically unfit to be deployed anywhere, an accident waiting to happen (remember when I blocked the echo notifications of dozens of editors with only 10 characters in a single Flow page?) and not having Flow is no problem for any of the discussions people theoretically might have on the project talk page. Your defense is based entirely on red herrings, and your comments about the freedom any project has, including the implementation of new software not wanted by the wider community, is not based on any reality.
 * TLDR: WhatamIdoing, stop talking nonsense. Fram (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fram, I try to rewrite my posts if I catch something like "cronie" in an edit-preview. (I do a plenty of rewriting, with mixed success.) We all need to work together and I try to remember that a rewrite might increase the chances of reaching a positive long-term outcome. Alsee (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually do as well. With some people, the chance of reaching such an outcome is next-to-zero though. If you have had many discussions, on multiple topics, with the same person (sometimes in their WMF guise, sometimes in their personal-but-just-happens-to-support-the-WMF-preferred-outcome guise), and you have witnessed the frequency of their incorrect statements and their lack of correction once these things are pointed out, then you just give up hope for them. Using or not using "cronies" won't change this anymore. Fram (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing I would like to point out a couple facts. 1. The RFC was started by a non member of the wikiproject. 2. Only 2 members participated in the RFC, both with remove Flow comments. Had more members commented and those members wanted to keep flow, the closer should take this into consideration in the close. But that isnt what happened here, "If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas." sounds about right for this discussion.  AlbinoFerret  15:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret, there were more than two WikiProject Breakfast participants who commented during the RFC. For example, Ottawahitech is a long-time participant, and is also a proponent of keeping Flow on the page.  But as I said above, ignoring the irrelevant POVs of non-participants would not necessarily change the end result.  My interest in this discussion is a matter of principle, not a matter of practical effect in the instant case.
 * Fram, I'd be happy to see a diff in which I proposed enabling Flow at WikiProject Breakfast. I'll make it easy for you:  The original proposal is right here, and my name isn't anywhere in it.  I support the right of WikiProjects to determine, for themselves, the best ways for their group to work together.  If they decide that they do or don't want Flow, then I support their decision.  What I can't support is a couple of people who have personally contested this software in multiple forums trying to impose their antipathy for Flow on the WikiProject.  If you want it off all pages, then you need to have an RFC about getting it off all pages, not an RFC about imposing your wishes on a small group that you don't even pretend to belong to.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * please provide the diff where Ottawahitech signed his name to the member list. Because I cant seem to find it in the list. AlbinoFerret  21:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AlbinoFerret, the membership lists are irrelevant. They're never up to date, they often overstate the membership by including people who signed up and then quit editing.  There are many people who participate but didn't want to officially sign up (in some cases, "signing up" means getting spam in the form of newsletters).  Some WikiProjects refuse to have them entirely.  If you want to know who the actual participants are, then you look at comments (especially replies).  For small groups, and all inactive ones, it's also a good idea to take a look at the active editors in the area, e.g., WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Breakfast.  And since I know that it's impossible for everyone to know that such resources exist, then the easy "rule" to remember is that whenever you've got questions or disputes involving a WikiProject, then you should drop by WT:COUNCIL and ask.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you dont have a diff? I disagree, to be a member of a wikiproject your name should be on the member list. Ill grant you if a member list does not exist then its harder to tell who is a member, but that isnt the case here, a member list exists. If your name is not on the member list, your not a member. The home page of Wikiproject Breakfast has a member tab thats quite large. Anyone can put their name on the list. If you havent, then your not a member. The whole argument is that "members" were ignored. Well so far IMHO only 2 members commented on the RFC, and they said remove flow. The rest is just arm waving and distractions. AlbinoFerret  04:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Speaking as one of the editors who has spent many years supporting WikiProjects, updating the guideline on them, helping people organize new ones, and resolving disputes between them, I'm telling you that your personal opinion does not reflect the general way these groups work.  Adding your name to the list, and then never editing a single page within the project's scope (e.g., "Planecrashexpert", one of the so-called members), does not actually make you a participant.  (And if you go back and look at my comments, you will find that I use the word participant almost exclusively.)  WP:WikiProject defines a WikiProject this way:  "A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia."  The link there is to social group, which defines that term in part as "a social group has been defined as two or more people who interact with one another".  You cannot be part of a social group if you don't show up and interact with the other people in the group.  But you most certainly can be part of a group even if you don't fill out a particular piece of paperwork.  This fact is even recorded in the FAQ on WikiProjects: "What's the biggest WikiProject?  Nobody knows, because not all participants add their names to a membership list, and membership lists are almost always out of date."
 * BTW, if you'd like to talk to someone else about this, then you might look at this Signpost report to find the names of some of the most experienced editors in this area, or you can post your question at WT:COUNCIL. But you're not going to hear experienced editors agree that a "member" who does nothing more than sign his name on the membership page is actually a member, or that a participant who is active in the group but never signs the membership page is somehow not a valid part of the group.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your personal opinion, FAQ's are not policy. Anyway this whole section is in the wrong place, and the RFC close was reviewed and passed, so this whole section is rather a waste of time. AlbinoFerret  06:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you didn't propose it and I was wrong about that, fine (see how hard that is, admitting when you have made a mistake?) I've done more Flow testing than most project members there, and that was the purpose of the trial, not some way to improve the prohect (which it hasn't done clearly). Not a single good argument has been given why Flow would be beneficial to the project, only some principled "stay of our turf" comments. You are free to make clear what you consider the best way for your group to work together, but a) no work is being done on that project anyway, and b) no indication of why Flow would be a better way to work together has ever been given. And I didn't start the RfC, but once such an RfC was started, I was free to participate in it. So don't lecture on what kind of RfC I should have started when I haven't started the "wrong" one to begin with. I have done my part in getting rid of Flow on pages that protested against getting it but got it imposed by the WMF anyway, I have done my part in testing the things that go wrong (or horribly wrong) with Flow, I know the problems in adminning Flow pages, I have read the messages of people removing Flow pages from their watchlist because of Flow (good way to promote Wikiproject participation). Are you even aware that your precious project (of which you aren't a member apparently) talk page is not even editbale by IPs and new editors? Yes, it has been protected since September 2014 because it is a Flow page (and not by me, by the way). So please explain again, for the benefit of all of us, how having Flow as your talk page format has helped the project and its members in any even minute way, and how keeping it in Flow format will be beneficial? Fram (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried to avoid commenting here to let this section die naturally. Apparently it didn't work. Chuckle. We really shouldn't be debating Flow here, we shouldn't be debating the WMF-Community interaction here, we shouldn't be debating the close here (that was handled and resolved at Admin Noticeboard).
 * If/when I want to start an RFC about the site-wide status of Flow, WhatamIdoing is absolutely right. That is a Village Pump discussion. I've considered it, but I'm in no rush and I have other priorities at the moment. Of course anyone else on either side of the issue is welcome to start that RFC. It might be helpful to get clarity on what the general consensus is. It is common for people on both sides of an issue, any issue, to mistakenly believe they have more support than they do. If *I* am misjudging the general community consensus on Flow, I'd certainly want to know. I'd certainly ease up on my comments and actions.
 * Project Breakfast: There had been zero project activity in fourteen months . If it had been an active project then WhatamIdoing is right that the most appropriate action would have been to discuss it with the active users of the page. There was no one there using Flow, and one one there to request an end to the trial. In my opinion the obvious thing to do was open an RFC to try to draw people in to discuss the question. In my opinion it was perfectly appropriate for the community-at-large to ensure an inactive project is properly maintained for the benefit of attracting and serving future editors who may show up. The consensus of the discussion was that the inactive Flow trial was no longer serving any useful research purpose, and that maintaining Flow on the page had negative value for the future of the project and the community in general. Alsee (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the Flow page has objectively helped the group. What matters is what those editors want to do with it.  And, yes, Alsee, I can understand why you assumed that the group was inactive (especially if you didn't know that projects which are actually inactive get tagged that way...), but it still would have been reasonable to post a friendly "Anyone home?" message before posting an RFC in which you request that outsiders impose their POV on a small group.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that active users of a project should get substantial deference on how to run a project, within community-accepted limits. However I think you're coming uncomfortably close to asserting OWNership of a project that no one used in over a year. That is inactive, regardless of whether it is tagged. All pages are fundamentally owned by the community, to serve all current and future editors who might show up. Every Flow page has had activity drop to zero and there were very reasonable concerns that Flow may have contributed to the death of the project. That is a valid global-community-management issue.
 * I'd also like to note the thin consensus to activate Flow in the first place. Breakfast was converted to Flow based on a consensus of four, two of whom never used Flow once it was activated. The situation was egregious at Hampshire. The WMF declared a consensus existed to convert Hampshire to Flow after a whopping two people Supported and two people Opposed. Staying on topic for this page, a weak consensus is easily reversed. Alsee (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The valid global-community-management issue is whether Flow ought to be present on any production page – which is not the question you asked. The community wouldn't have a valid reason to impose the views of non-participants on the actual participants, over the objections of the participants (assuming, of course, that the actual participants really did object, which is doubtful).  Or, to put it another way, you have a good reason to ask them about whether they still wanted Flow on that page, but you did not have a valid reason to ask BethNaught and Fram (to name two firm opponents of Flow, who never participated in that group but still showed up to vote on this RFC) whether WikiProject Breakfast still wanted Flow on that page.
 * This is "ownership" only in the sense that you have "ownership" of your user space: The person who "lives there" deserves some respect.  The community has the right to declare that nobody may do something that seems harmful on their user pages, but it does not have a right to declare that you individually, having committed no offense, may not do what is (theoretically) permitted to anyone else.  The community is not supposed to treat individuals or small groups of editors so arbitrarily and capriciously.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alsee didn't ask me anything, he asked all editors to give their opinion. Note that actual long-time project members asked to disable Flow from that page a long time before the RfC. Note also that editors and admins have lost time only because Flow was used on that page. And finally note that using Flow for your talk page (user or project) is not "permitted to anyone else", contrary to what you imply; and that there is no "you individually" here, this is a group effort, with members, passers-by, admins, and everyone else who may come into contact with it. In your view, someone like Doug Weller (a long time member opposing the use of Flow) may not, "individually, having committed no offense", do what is permitted to anyone else, i.e. use the standard talk page for his project communication, instead of Flow. Please think about what you use as arguments before posting them, it would help if you stuck to the convincing and reasoned ones and dropped the untenable or irrelevant ones. Fram (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "you did not have a valid reason to ask BethNaught and Fram (to name two firm opponents of Flow, who never participated in that group but still showed up to vote on this RFC) whether WikiProject Breakfast still wanted Flow on that page" - I'm assuming that is just poorly worded, but for the record I did not Canvass anyone to the RFC.
 * And since we keep circling back to the topic of asking the community-wide question, WhatamIdoing would you like to collaborate on a Village Pump RFC? 1: Ask if we want to enable the new opt-in Flow User_talk pages. (I'm opposed, but that question certainly belongs in the RFC.) 2: Sort out expectations for creating/removing Flow pages in general. 3: Whether to keep the three(?) remaining Flow pages on EnWiki. The only one with significant activity is the Flow testing page, which makes that one rather circular in purpose. Alsee (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Making thorough pre-RFC discussion mandatory
BullRangifer has made changes making "thorough" pre-RFC discussion mandatory. I support these changes (with a couple of tweaks I intend to make after posting this), but would note that so far as I know, they are a change, not a reflection of the current state, as noted in the Dispute Resolution Policy, "Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request.", and at the [[Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss|Responding to a failure to discuss essay: "As noted in the Dispute Resolution policy, all content dispute resolution procedures — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Request for Comments (though the requirement is very weak there )" I support them because collegial discussion is one of the foundations of the encyclopedia and allowing dispute resolution with little or no discussion discourages that. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with strengthening the previous language, although it might be a good idea to acknowledge limited exceptions. If there are good reasons to think an RfC would be necessary, then WP:NOTBURO is relevant. Policy RfCs, for example, especially if written by someone already intimately familiar with the policy and its history. (Or some cases on controversial articles, but in that case they're also much more likely to be frivolous or vexatious.)
 * I'm not really sure what change would work though, at least not without leaving an opening for wikilawyering, and I expect this would cut down the numbers of poorly considered RfCs. In the meantime, if this model has been successful at DRN I'd support giving it a try. Sunrise (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * TransporterMan, thanks for the support, and I welcome any improvements on my fledgling attempt to improve the existing policy. We both feel it was too weak. A "suggestion" has no teeth and disruptive editors will ignore it. Changes should aim to hamper disruptive editors, not normal and proper discussion and local consensus. It is editors who, as soon as they see that they may not get their way, try to make an end run around these processes by prematurely starting an RfC, who need to be stopped by firmer wording. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can really make it mandatory. Good editors are just going to ignore it when it's appropriate to do so, and it's not likely to prevent bad RFC's from being posted. I don't think there's much you can do to avert the problem of people who "know" they are right, and who mistakenly believe the world is on their side. In many cases the best route is to just let them get squashed by their own RFC.
 * I was considering suggesting say that it is permissible to take down an RFC once to pursue local discussion and/or pursue agreeable-neutral language, if the RFC has not yet received more than one support (aside from the author). Unfortunately that would probably invite just as much trouble. You can't write good-judgement into policy. There were three times I flat-out took down bad RFC notices. All my takedowns were uncontested, well applied IAR. In one case the RFC author actually thanked me for averting the impending trainwreck.
 * Are there specific problem cases you could point to? Maybe that will clarify what policy change might help. Alsee (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. In the takedowns I was a non-participant, responding to RFC-feedback-requests. Two of the three were formatted as preemptive closes. The one where I was thanked was a naked takedown, noting why it was going to go badly, with a comment to collaborate on a new neutral RFC question. Hmm, I think I did another naked takedown at village pump, but I don't recall the details. Alsee (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We who work in dispute resolution at 3O, DRN, and formal mediation take down or refuse requests all the time for lack of thorough or extensive discussion and are almost never challenged on it. I recognize that RFCs are a bit different, but I wouldn't be surprised if we got the same result here. One difference, however, that might need to be clearly said here (perhaps in a footnote) is that the RFC takedown should only be done by someone who's not been involved in the dispute or been involved in editing the article or the talk page up until that point. That's almost never a problem at the DR forums, but this might be a bit different. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go revert nearly all of this in a moment. I understand and sympathize with the impulse, but what you've written is really not going to work in practice. You've accidentally declared that RFCs cannot be held unless there is a "dispute"; that RFCs cannot be held if you believe that the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is wrong, that useful RFCs cannot follow confusing ones, and that RFCs cannot be held unless you already have other participants in a discussion. And none of that is true, as all of you know.

You may be surprised to hear me object to this, since I've just been chastising Alsee for opening an RFC at WikiProject Breakfast rather than having a friendly chat with the locals. Your wording would have made his RFC "illegal". But that's actually evidence that these new rules aren't desirable. The problem with Alsee's RFC was the special nature of the page; if he'd done the same thing for any non-WikiProject page in the Wikipedia: namespace, then beginning with an RFC would be the absolutely normal, expected, and appropriate.

Alsee, on your comments about takedowns, I agree with you. We don't even admit that it's possible (although IAR is core policy), because it leads to (has actually led to, more than once) disastrous meta-disputes. The takedowns are almost never done by people like you or me; they're almost always done by the person whose (perceived) POV pushing is the root cause of the RFC. We don't want rules that say woo proponents and COI-abusing editors are always permitted to takedown every RFC that Brangifer starts, not even once (and certainly not once per editor!) because it inflames disputes rather than resolving them. There are philosophical/ethical issues with this omission (not mentioning that IAR applies means that people like us have even more advantages over newbies, which isn't ideal for writing instructions or policy making), but we had a long discussion a couple of years ago about who, exactly, is permitted to withdraw an RFC early or change the contents, and the current rules (which can be massively oversimplified as "don't touch someone else's RFC") were chosen as the least-bad option.

On the general question, I assume that you're concerned about a proliferation of "needless" RFCs. There are several approaches we could take:


 * 1) We could more clearly state that most discussions don't require RFCs.
 * 2) We could more clearly encourage prior discussion, e.g., by providing links in the RFC template to relevant talk page sections.
 * 3) We could reduce the reward for holding an RFC, e.g., by making it more onerous to have the "consensus" formally enshrined in a closing statement, or by changing the standard closing templates to directly state that consensus can and does change or that the closing statement is an effort to describe the result and not a binding rule issued by a judge.
 * 4) We could decide not to worry about it.  For example, we could decide that reaching out impartially to the whole community might actually be a good thing.

If I see an easy way to incorporate some of these ideas, I will try to do that now; feel free to boldly try again, having thought through some of the feedback here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle with having pre-RFC discussion be mandatory, as long as there is no requirement that it come to a conclusion even as to what the RFC should say. If there has to be agreement on what the RFC should ask, the RFC can be blocked by a stubborn editor or civil POV pusher, and sometimes an RFC is the only way to deal with a civil POV pusher.  (An uncivil POV pusher can be blocked for incivility.)  The comment about RFCs being taken down by POV pushers is well taken.  Also, does discussion at third opinion or the dispute resolution noticeboard count as valid pre-discussion?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're required to have a discussion, then how would you start an RFC on a page that nobody's watching? Could I prevent you from starting an RFC by refusing to engage on the talk page?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to start an RFC on a page that no one is watching? If no one is watching the page, then just be bold and edit the page.  As to preventing an RFC by refusing to engage on the talk page, that is similar.  If one editor proposes an RFC and another editor says nothing, then just go ahead and edit the page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are always ways to get around refusal to discuss. At Third Opinion, I had a request from a registered editor, who was making an addition to an article and was being reverted by an unregistered editor who wouldn't contribute to the talk page.  I couldn't offer a Third Opinion, but I suggested that the registered editor request semi-protection.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * More generally, why do you need an RFC is there is no discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to start an RFC even if nobody's watching the page or talking to you?
 * Maybe because you just wrote the page, you want to have it declared a guideline, and WP:PROPOSAL recommends an RFC? You can't just boldly slap a guideline tag on a page (not since October 2008, anyway ;-).
 * Maybe because you know that something needs fixing, but you can't or don't know how to fix it yourself?
 * Maybe because there's an official policy about being WP:CAUTIOUS, and you believe that getting advice in advance is a good idea in that instance?
 * In the 'refusal to discuss' issue, you're just not getting it. (This probably says good things about your moral character.  :-)  If we say "no RFC until there's a discussion", then you can edit, I can revert your edits, you can post to the page, and I can ignore the attempt to discuss and keep reverting your edits (within the limits of 3RR and other forms of edit warring) – and it'll be "illegal" for you to start an RFC until you can prove that there was "a discussion".  "A discussion" requires comments on the same subject from more people than just you.  If we require that, then bad actors will sometimes be able to deliberately prevent good-faith, collaborative editors from starting an RFC.  This doesn't serve the community or the encyclopedia.  If you're stuck with a person who refuses to discuss a problem, then you should definitely be able to start an RFC.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 to WhatamIdoing's comments. Excellent points, well said. Alsee (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I will try to address User:WhatamIdoing's concerns, which seem mostly to be about users who deliberately refuse to discuss. With regard to wanting to make something into a guideline, I would suggest discussing at the Village Pump.  Also, while the topic of this thread is about making pre-RFC discussion mandatory, does the proposed language actually say that discussion is mandatory, or only that it is strongly encouraged?  It seems that WhatamIdoing is very concerned about editors who deliberately say nothing in order to sabotage a change, when I see combative editors as more of a problem.  As to editors who revert changes and will not discuss them, there could be language stating that if one editor has attempted to raise an issue on a talk page and there is edit-warring without discussion, that the edit-warring takes the place of discussion in allowing the RFC to go forward.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You said that you would suggest starting a discussion at the Village pump. Did you know that the official policy on this subject says to "start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The inspiration for several of my (now reverted) edits, which received many "thanks" from other editors, was a disruptive editor who has at least twice "prematurely" started RfCs when they could see that a discussion wasn't going their way, even though a local consensus had formed. These premature RfCs are disruptive and violate the principles of the collaborative editing process.

When I say "inspiration", it's more a case of the "straw that broke the camel's back," since I've seen such misuse of RfCs before, and it needs to be stopped. This was just a strategy used by one disgruntled editor, and it was very disruptive because it derailed all previous efforts and created a paralyzing atmosphere in which no one dared to do anything more.

Here we had a disgruntled editor trying to disrupt the process of collaboration and consensus building so they could get their way. In one case they canvassed a large number of editors and started an RfC elsewhere than the article's talk page. None of the involved participants had a clue what was going on, and the RfC used very misleading wording, painting a horrible picture which no sane editor would approve, so the disruptive editor got a quick majority to block the consensus on the local article talk page. That's why we need to ensure that a good discussion has happened, and that a deadlock is preventing progress. Then an RfC is proper to break the deadlock.

Keep in mind that an often significant disadvantage of bringing in uninvolved editors is that they don't know the circumstances, and rarely perform due diligence investigations. They are easily swayed to make a decision based on incomplete and misleading "evidence" in what may be very complicated proceedings, thus thwarting a local consensus which is just about to finally resolve a whole lot of problems. This bumps everything back to a stone age situation, with all progress blocked by one disgruntled editor who, by prematurely using an RfC, wasn't willing to allow the local consensus to do its work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, you should add links to that. Without links I reflexively apply a 50% chance that the goodguy/badguy roles are revered. It's also unclear if it could have been dealt with by applying other existing policies, or what policy change would have been effective. Alsee (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alsee, you can safely trust BullRangifer's story here. He's dealt with a lot of unusually difficult and protracted disputes, and the only that should surprise you is that he didn't run screaming from project years ago.
 * Brangifer, I need a way to determine what a "premature" RFC is. (The "wrong page" RFC is straightforward, and CANVAS already exists.)  But what's "premature" (e.g., versus carelessly written), and how do I keep a good-faith newbie from getting in trouble for it?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, I understand the wish to have some reliable way to determine whether the timing is "premature", but that will likely always be a judgment call. The cases I refer to above were instances where the editor chose to not stick with the discussion, but essentially went screaming to mamma for help, because all the other kids wouldn't allow him to change the rules or let him play according to his own rules, to use an analogy from childhood. The analogy isn't perfect, but the idea is that the editor didn't collaborate or honor the consensus, but, upon seeing that a consensus had formed, or in once instance "might" form, against their POV, they just started RfCs which were disruptive, and in one case were very deceptive.
 * A third instance comes to mind, which was recently shut down before really getting started, because it was so ridiculous that other editors agreed it should be closed. So there are actually three times the editor did this. Sticking to the topic, staying with the discussion, and honoring the consensus when it doesn't go your way (failure to do that sums up IDHT behavior), that's what the editor fails to do, and we need to encourage all editors to really deal with the issues on the talk page, with the other editors there, without crying for mamma to intervene. OTOH, if no consensus can be reached, or there are serious policy violations, that's a different matter, but that wasn't so in any of the cases above. Alsee, I choose not to provide diffs or usernames as that would end up causing a renewed shitstorm and distract from the basic issue here. Their input here is unnecessary and would be unproductive.
 * My edits here may not have been the best method, but it was an attempt, and I am totally open to discussing better ways to get editors to not use RfCs as part of their IDHT behavior. I would like to see at least a partial restoration of some of my edits, but please improve them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edits are getting people to think about what could be improved here. "Premature" isn't the clearest way to describe this, and "as part of your IDHT problem" will fall on deaf ears, as it were.  Maybe we could base a statement on the idea of consensus and collaboration?  I don't have an instant solution (perhaps someone else will?) but I think we can improve in this area.  I don't believe we can go quite as far as you might wish (on somedays, at least).  It's got to work for typical situations, not just the most vexing ones.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad it's getting people to think about some improvements. Let's not stop with thinking, and let's not let an inability (even if temporary) to make a perfect solution keep us from making imperfect steps in the right direction. No solution will ever cover all situations, but some of my wording could still prevent some abuse of RfCs.
 * I think restoring "premature" in some manner would help. "Premature" means starting RfC without first attempting a discussion, or to short circuit/sabotage an existing discussion. The idea is to emphasize the primacy of seeking local consensus first. Here was my first attempt.
 * BTW, maybe that's a typo, but I wrote "their IDHT behavior", not "your"....
 * Also (totally different topic here), I'm a bit uncertain about the meaning of "new one" in your restoration of "essays". Edit summary: "We actually do use RFCs on essays, e.g., to decide whether to start a new one." Do you mean to start a new essay, or start a new RfC? Since essays are not governed by many of our policies, quite notably NPOV, there is no one "right" version, and dissatisfied editors are encouraged to just write a new essay, rather than try to force an essay to change the POV intended by its author. Editors should seek to improve an essay, not try to change its POV, even if the POV isn't totally aligned with current policies. If they really disagree, they should write their own essay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the essays, but we have occasional RFCs about whether someone's effort to change an essay is sufficiently divergent to be worth splitting and about whether an editor can be forced to split his POV off a popular essay, onto a new/unread/unlinked/unpopular one. (In fact, the advice at WP:Wikipedia essays on that point was the result of one such dispute.)
 * Does something like "when a productive discussion is currently underway" sound a bit like the concept you're aiming for with "premature"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your diff is exactly the content I agree with and am referring to! I had forgotten it was you who wrote that. It's really good. There is no one "right" version of an essay, and later I added to that.
 * I'm not sure how it will look, so go ahead and try it so we can see it. It looks like a step in the right direction. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I like your expansion; it should be clear to editors who are sincerely seeking advice on that point and very functional the next time we run into one of those disputes.
 * I wonder whether you'd like to have a go at working on Writing requests for comment. It needs some work (it's a solid draft, but not "finished"), and it might give us space to work out a few ideas without risking anything on the "official" page for a while.  I'm currently toying with the idea of a section like == Make sure your RFC isn't going to backfire == (only in more formal language, of course).  But I'm not sure it would help; I need to think about it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think a section like that would add a lot. Please edit boldly!, I'll second the invitation. Sunrise (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. That sounds like a good way forward. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

BullRangifer says, above, that, in his opinion, "'Premature' means starting RfC without first attempting a discussion, or to short circuit/sabotage an existing discussion." I can only agree with half of that, the "without first attempting a discussion" part. I don't think that there is, or can be, an attempt to short circuit or sabotage an existing discussion by filing an RFC since the very purpose of RFC's is to bring additional editors into a discussion (but see later in this posting about consensus). (As an aside, let me note that in the rest of DR, the purpose of requiring discussion is merely to enforce the collaborative goal of Wikipedia, that people should at least be held to making a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others. But that's all.) One other thing that we do which is related to the "prematurity" discussion above is that at DRN and MEDCOM we won't take a case where there's already a clear consensus (and, ordinarily, in the situation where there's exactly one editor continuing to bang her/his head against that consensus) on the logic that there is no longer a dispute to be resolved. However, we only do that when the consensus is unmistakably clear. When it's less than unmistakably clear, we'll let the case move forward. I think that we need to be careful here not to create a lot of drama about whether or not RFC's are available because of one or more editors asserting that there is consensus. I'm — mostly — okay with the idea that RFC's shouldn't be available when a discussion has already resulted in an unmistakably clear consensus, but my feeling is that they ought to be available any time consensus is less certain or is still being formed. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * One more thought in a slightly different direction, if we do get a discussion requirement I wonder if we shouldn't exempt policy and guideline creation and modification? We should be encouraging full-community discussion of those changes and though local discussion can modify them, the "high road" is to immediately get the entire community involved and one way to do that is through RFC, along with listing at the Village Pump and at Centralized Discussion. Especially (but not only) with new policy creation just immediately putting up the proposal in the form of a RFC should be acceptable. For changes to existing policy, discussion on the (existing) talk page as a feeler is always a good idea, but for the same reason it doesn't seem to me that it ought to be required. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:TransporterMan's comments. What I see is several experienced editors saying that prior discussion should be either mandatory or strongly encouraged, and I see two editors who disagree, because of concerns that prior discussion could be stonewalled.  I think that there is a rough consensus in favor of strengthening the language on prior discussion.  I think that exempting policy and guideline RFCs is a good idea.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable summary.
 * I can see how RfCs about PAG could be started sooner, since the subject isn't about some complicated subject using lots of RS, history, controversy, and background, which requires that the participants have a good understanding of all that, and of all the article's editing history, and all the current and past (archived) talk page discussions. When it's about PAG, it's about what we already have as our background info for doing our work. Yet, some discussion should first occur on the policy's or guideline's talk page. If the discussion goes seamlessly forward, there is no need to bring in the whole community. If it's a minor tweak, then a local agreement should be enough, and no RfC is needed. OTOH, if the discussion only involves two or three editors and is a potentially controversial change, then others should be brought in. That's when RfCs should be used, not before. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as stonewalling is concerned, there are ways to break them without RfCs. BRD, IAR, and other DR methods can be used. Often the disruptive editor will end up behaving badly enough to get blocked, whereupon progress can move forward. So, I don't think we should allow stonewalling situations to affect making progress here. There are usually other methods for dealing with stonewalling. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

As one who believes that prior discussion should be strongly encouraged, if not totally required, I am thinking mostly of articles, not PAG (although, to some degree, it should also apply to PAG, as I just stated above). All DR processes, including RfCs, are basically disruptive, because they create even more complication and often confusion. They should only be used when simpler processes aren't working. We should start by AGF with the local process and local editors who seek to collaborate and establish a local consensus. It's a bad faith move to seek to circumvent that process.

Bringing in many other editors, who rarely perform due diligence, can really screw things up. An article, especially a complicated and/or controversial subject, involves lots of RS, history, controversy, and background, which requires that the RfC participants have a good understanding of all that, and of all the article's editing history, and all the current and past (archived) talk page discussions. Uninvolved RfC participants rarely have that knowledge, and the one who starts the RfC will usually have picked some "weak" spot for the subject, and even if they word the RfC neutrally (also a relatively rare situation), they can thus derail or sabotage a consensus they do not like, or want to prevent. That can really block progress because it is uncollaborative. It is unfair to the other editors.

A recent situation requiring the renaming/moving of an article to a better title became extremely complicated because of spurious RfCs. Because new participants didn't realize that numerous previous RfCs had already ruled out certain possibilities, the rejected possibilities were constantly inserted, and then RfC closers made improper closures. It became a really cluster f###. Lack of background knowledge is the baggage brought by uninvolved editors. When their !votes show evidence of ignorance or that they have not performed due diligence, their !votes should be discounted, and no closer should act without thorough knowledge. It's a very different matter when using RfCs for PAG matters.

To prevent this type of disruption, discussion should be required until it either bogs down or no consensus can be reached. Then, by all means, go for it. Use RfCs and other DR processes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Assorted comments:
 * I liked TransporterMan's language about making a reasonable attempt, and have therefore duly swiped it for the page.
 * Some editors – usually the lone POV pusher, but not always – really do start RFCs in an effort to disrupt, or at least delay, a decision that they expect to "lose". Some of these RFCs ask questions that are not entirely straightforward, so less-informed editors will sometimes agree that all right-thinking people are in favor of security, peace, and justice without noticing the bit about agreeing that Florida is in Canada, which is the actual thing under dispute.
 * One of these RFCs is bad enough, but sometimes you'll end up with multiple RFCs on the same page, on basically the same topic, started by the same person. This is rare, but can be painful.  (Also, it frequently backfires against a disruptive editor, so it's not all bad.)  However, we discussed limits a while back, and concluded that the medicine is worse than the disease.  We can revisit that (or contemplate WP:TBANs for individuals) if that's gotten significantly worse since then.
 * How to change a policy or guideline is best handled at WP:POLICY. This page should avoid contradicting it (e.g., requiring RFCs despite WP:PGBOLD or prohibiting some RFCs despite WP:PROPOSAL), but otherwise can avoid it.
 * When you talk about "making discussion required", what do you see as a reasonable response if someone starts an RFC without prior discussion? Let's say that you are highly frustrated with me.  Let's even stipulate that I'm clearly wrong, and that we've been around this block enough times that you have already determined that I'm incapable of reading a source that says "Florida is in the southeastern US" and concluding therefrom that Florida is not in Canada.  You revert my claim that Florida is in Canada and start an RFC, in the hope that a dozen editors will show up and say that there is a consensus against Flordia being in Canada.  I declare that you "haven't discussed".  What's next?  Do I get to blank your RFC now?  Also, do you have to discuss the fact that you want to start an RFC, the exact question you want to ask, or just the general subject matter?
 * The quality of closes by NACs with zero expertise in the subject matter is an ongoing problem. For more than a year, a single NAC has been requesting that about 90% of expired RFCs get a formal closing statement, and a couple of NACs have closed many of them.  Most of their closes are either pointless (e.g., officially declaring "it's unanimous" when any editor can see that) or harmless, but the results too often do not reflect an appropriate or nuanced application of policies about sourcing (which, of course, requires knowing something about the subject area).  They're also not very good at figuring out which RFCs contain landmines and leaving those to someone with more skill, or at least an admin bit, so they get beat up a lot, too.  It's a lose-lose-lose situation, but I don't think we'll be able to stop it any time soon. But the reason I mention this is that if you get a POV pusher with a "misleading" question, a handful of commenters who don't know anything about the subject or are being sloppy, and one of these NACs (and odds are pretty high there), then there is a small, but frightening possibility that you will end up with an RFC that declares that Florida is Canadian.
 * I'm (very) dubious about "requiring" a discussion, but I think we can do more to encourage people not to start RFCs for every single discussion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying topics
I see that the page gives some details on the meaning of the "policies and guidelines" topic. There is another topic that appears to be commonly misunderstood, and I am going to add a similar clarification for that.

"Language and linguistics", under the "Article topics" heading is, it seems obvious to me, for issues concerning an article where the article topic is in the field of language and linguistics. But many people apparently take it to include all issues that involve the wording (language) of a Wikipedia page. This, of course, covers nearly every RfC and is not a useful category.

(I could see the utility of a category for issues that are about technical (not topical) English usage on specific Wikipedia pages, but there isn't one). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Commenting in the wrong space
I've noticed that on many RfC, instead of clicking the RfC link and commenting in the article's talk space, people are actually editing the RfC list itself, and commenting there (a la AfD discussions). How about a template for all RfC list pages which states clearly to click the link to comment in the articles talk page (where the RfC discussion takes place) rather than the RfC list itself? See here as an example. Some people are commenting there rather than clicking the links. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 02:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but I suspect it would not be very effective. The people commenting in the wrong place aren't paying a lot of attention.  Indeed, when you go to inappropriately edit that page today, there is a big warning at the top of the page telling you not to do it.  Here's a better idea: Modify Legobot so it puts "to comment, click here" at the bottom of every entry.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, now that's a good idea. Where is the appropriate place to propose that? - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 00:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the only person who can implement this is the owner of Legobot, Legoktm. So that user's talk page is where I would go.  However, in looking at the history on that talk page, I'm not optimistic that you would get action, if any response at all.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not promising. I'll give it a go; if not, maybe the template idea. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 17:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing is, unless I misunderstand, you'd need Legoktm's cooperation for the template idea too. Legobot creates the entire content of the RfC list pages.  You can edit the page, but whether you're adding a template tag or adding one of those misplaced comments, Legobot will eventually undo it.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not getting a response. Are there some sort of ignore tags that can be used to keep legobot from meddling? - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 19:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You might be more likely to get a response at User talk:Legobot, Legoktm responded to a posting there just today. I agree that it's not a bad idea at all. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Legobot isn't actually meddling; the RfC lists are designed to be created by Legobot; without Legobot, there's no page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I know, I meant meddling vis-a-vis a template added. Just as legobot doesn't meddle with user-added content in the list (which shouldn't actually be there, hence this discussion). super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat  03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We're obviously not communicating here. My understanding is that Legobot generates the entire page, so it can't help but eliminate that user-added content, as well as any template tag we might add.  Legobot doesn't edit the page - it generates a whole new one without looking at what was there before.  The only thing an ignore tag could do is shut down the generation of the RfC list pages altogether.  If you think it works differently, please explain.
 * Actually, upon closer examination, I'm not sure the problem you brought up even exists. The two cases I see now on this RfC list are cases where the person creating the RfC incorrectly used the RfC template on the subject article's text page.  That made Legobot think one of the responses was part of the request text, and that's why one of the responses shows up on the list page.  I couldn't find a case in the page history of someone editing the RfC list page.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh good pull, it may be a moot point after all. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 22:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Error
Looks like there was a mistake recently made on the project page for Biographies. Drmies's RfC closure closed out all the RfCs on the page. Not saying it was the user's fault but somehow things got a bit screwy. I'm not sure how to fix it or else I would. Any takers? Meatsgains (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing it's because the RfC template was still active (that fits with why it was moved to the top of the list as well, due to the new timestamp). I've removed it and we'll see if Legobot fixes it in the next update. Sunrise (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I closed them all? Cool! But then I put out of a job, I suppose. (Please drop me a line if y'all figure out what I did wrong so next time I can screw it up on purpose.) Drmies (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yup, just leave the RfC template active above your close, like so. :-) Then your closing statement is the first comment in the RfC, and Legobot will obligingly use it to replace the prompt and move the RfC to the top of the section according to the timestamp. Since the archivebottom template doesn't get transcluded, the closure box will stretch down until everything else on the page is also closed. For bonus points, make sure it's a biography RfC so that you close everything at RfC/A as well! Sunrise (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Drmies please Don't delete the main page. Grin. Anyone who wants to see what happened can click to view this version. Alsee (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I left a comment on the Legobot talk page suggesting it be updated to detect this sort of very simple mistake. Alsee (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Unexpected ERROR when editing
I am editing an entry on thymidine kinase in clinical chemistry. To get the right text I edit it in my sandbox. I have the references on a word sheet and copy the references into their correct places by marking with numbers where they should be placed. When I came through half the article I got error messages whenever I tried to copy something (even a simple word or number) into the text. I can write and edit, just not copy anything into the text. I use Google Chrome, my Microsoft Edge of course does not work properly, but I have had no problems with Chrome so far. The problem always appears when I have come to a defined point in my editing, until this there is no problem copying references into the text and the result looks good. What has happened?? How can I solve this? Lave Lave (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Why no medicine category?
I notice that the categories for dicussions under Requests for comment don't specifically mention medicine-related articles. This seems like a topic that is broad and common enough on Wikipedia to be named under a specific category, even if shared with other topics, such as. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've always found the list of categories to be surprisingly short; there are plenty of topics as significant as medicine that don't have their own categories. On the other hand, the frequency of requests in the existing supercategories is so low that it's probably reasonable to expect people just to filter out the the subcategories that don't interest them manually.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine
Sorry if this is in the wrong place but could any uninvolved admin(s) please weigh in at Talk:Planet Nine? I've tried in earnest to preside over that discussion but I think we need outside help. As I see it, the reasons given for removing the offending image from the infobox have not changed, even though the image has changed. I realize that it's a rather lengthy discussion but I for one would very much appreciate somebody taking the time to read the whole thing. Regards,  nagual  design   14:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's the wrong place. This page is for discussing the page Requests for comment.  I don't think the kind of mediation or arbitration you're looking for exists in Wikipedia, but there are a variety of facilities that come close.  Mediation is one.  Also, you could request comments from others with the RfC process or just get a third opinion.  Administrators do not have any special authority to arbitrate article content; all an administrator is is an editor with access to privileged tools that cannot be made available to the entire world without causing mayhem.  For example, if a consensus develops that the image in question should be there and an editor keeps removing it anyway, an administrator could block that user for editing against consensus.  But an administrator has no more power than a non-administrator to decide whether the image should be there or to moderate a discussion of it.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have already run through the RfC process. The consensus seemed to me to be to remove the image. However, when I attempted to draw the discussion to a close I was met with an impasse. Since I am the original proposer I thought that perhaps an uninvolved editor might be better placed to make the final judgement, and people might actually listen to an admin. At the very least an admin would likely understand the guidelines better than I do.  nagual  design   17:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, in that case I believe what you want is to post at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.


 * Note that in spite of the name of the page, closing doesn't have to be done by an administrator. There are probably some editors who respect the opinion of an administrator more than that of a non-administrator, but they should not, and it is an abuse of administrator status for an administrator to suggest that that status gives him more say in a matter like this.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Question
An editor at Talk:Sicario (2015 film), where an RfC is in process about a section, says he is free to make whatever contentious, substantive changes he wants to to that section without waiting for an RfC consensus. He says he can do so since nothing at Requests for comment says he can't. This seems so antithetical to the process that I'm kind of astonished. Is this something we really need to state, that we're supposed to wait for an RfC to finish before we make changes? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is mostly addressed by other pages. If edits are being made in disregard of any open discussion, not just an RfC, then we can just call it disruptive editing (or edit-warring if it's done repeatedly, etc). If that happens, then the issue is exacerbated by the open discussion being an RfC, and I wouldn't mind adding a caution to this page to that effect. But I've also seen mid-RfC edits that are productive attempts to resolve the dispute, so I wouldn't want to ban it completely. (No comment on which category this specific situation falls into, as I haven't studied it in detail.) Another case is that sometimes the consensus becomes clear before the RfC finishes. Once you make sure the change is noted in the RfC itself, I'd just describe your direct objections to the content of the edit so the closer can take that into account, and if relevant make an interim request that others follow BRD. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 07:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, as Sunrise said, it depends on the situation and I haven't looked. You can revert and raise an objection on the talk page, but don't editwar it. Bad edits can easily backfire on them, if several people consider the edits unconstructive. If one person is persistently inserting the same change and multiple editors are reverting and objecting, then it's pretty clear the one person is being disruptive.
 * A very good approach on Wikipedia is having the goal of eventually getting the article to the right version, without caring that it's currently at The_Wrong_Version. Don't stress over temporary edits you don't like, if the RFC result is just going to wipe them out anyway. Alsee (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both. Perhaps, as <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> said, we can add a sentence to this effect that addresses simply contentious edits, as opposed to productive attempts to resolve the dispute &mdash; although wouldn't it be more productive to run those proposed changes by other editors on the talk page first, as opposed to preemptively making them? What are your thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My first suggestion parallels my comment above about being patient about reaching the right version: trying to rewrite the page before your current situation resolves can look bad. I skimmed the current page and I didn't immediately see anything to revise or a good place to insert, but here's a short insertion that may be useful:

Edits to content under RFC discussion may be particularly controversial. Try to avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Repeated edits after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive or edit warring. Be patient, make your improvements after the outcome of the RFC is clear.
 * Alsee (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's good. The last sentence seems maybe more conversational than policy/guideline pages usually are. I'm also thinking it might be better to say "avoid" than "try to avoid," since by itself the word "avoid" isn't an outright prohibition, but a suggestion. ("Avoid doing this" as opposed to "Do not do this".) What do you think of:
 * "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive or edit warring."


 * --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Either version works for me. I agree that it isn't necessary to use "repeated," but I'd also support the "Be patient" statement (maybe adding "and consider" in the middle to make it a bit more formal). Maybe this could go in "Suggestions for responding" and the section could be renamed to something like "During the RfC." <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 05:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just added and then removed an updated version restoring the last sentence, after I realized that the sentence could be misinterpreted. "Make your improvements after the outcome of the RFC is clear" can be taken to mean that after a consensus is reached, editors can go ahead and put their own version ("your improvements") back in regardless. Is there another way to word what you mean? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Though I've not been involved in this discussion I support this change. I've added a link to the DE guideline. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To address Tenebrae's concern I changed it to: "Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved."
 * BTW: Technically this is a glossary page, not a policy or guideline. Alsee (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alsee said it better than I could — believe me, I tried! My compliments! So what do other editors think of:
 * "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved."


 * --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Feedback Request Service
The page says that, after bot notification:


 * "there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations ... [including] Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service.  You must select editors from the list at random; you cannot pick editors that will be on 'your side' in a dispute."

We had a recent situation of an editor apparently "randomly" choosing names from a particular sub-section of the feedback request service, one that had nothing to do with the RfC question. I would therefore like to change this for future RfCs.

If the choice is to be truly random, it should be done by a bot, so the first question is whether we could arrange for a bot to notify names at random from the list, on behalf of a particular editor.

Otherwise, if it's to be done manually, how do we tighten this to ensure that the category choice is more appropriate or that the choice of names is more random? Pinging, and , who've been discussing this. SarahSV (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also pinging, who runs Legobot. I believe Legobot informs people randomly about RfCs. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this guideline was to allow editors to publicize an RfC that received insufficient attention. SV's suggestion of allowing editors to request that a bot send out random notifications would be an improvement, but better still, perhaps a bot could automatically send out random notifications if there is little or no activity in the RfC during the first few days it is listed. This would address the other issue wherein, under the current rules, editors might selectively decide to send out more notifications whenever the discussion isn't going their way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping will be willing to explain what triggers Legobot. I had always assumed it was something along those lines: an RfC that has received no input.


 * I'm not a fan of random notification. I want people at RfCs who may know something about the topic. It's sometimes worse than useless to have random people arrive, although this depends on the topic; there are times when it can be helpful.


 * If an editor is to make manual selections from the feedback list, they should at least be required to pick the most appropriate category: appropriate in the sense of more likely to know something about the topic's literature. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Feedback request service has some details on how it works. The bot doesn't check whether the RfC has received any feedback or not. Legoktm (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I was wondering how the random selection works with the bot. For example, does it do this for every RfC, how many people does it notify, and which sub-sections does it choose from? SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As long as the RfC is categorized properly and using the right template, then yes, every RfC. My quick read through the code suggests that it will notify as many people are eligible to be randomly notified, there's no hard limit on a per-RfC basis. The sub-sections used are basically determined by the RfC author, depending on what category they put the RfC in. Legoktm (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , what would "as many people are eligible to be randomly notified" mean? Does that mean that everyone on the feedback list for a particular category is eligible to be notified? How many of those would be randomly notified, and if the bot is doing that why does anyone do it manually? Sorry to keep asking questions, but I'm completely unfamiliar with this. SarahSV (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I was actually surprised to learn about this aspect of the RfC guideline. Had no idea it was possible to solicit input to RfCs in that manner. I thought you had to sit back and cross your fingers. So one part of me says "Yeah! Great!" and another part of me says "This can be gamed." Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't everything on Wikipedia like that? ;) Legoktm (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we ought to change the manual aspect of this, because it's too easy to game it. SarahSV (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm surprised there is a safe harbor for canvassing, if the canvassees are on the FRS list. Wasn't this taken into consideration at some point? Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also think the manual use of the FRS list should not be allowed, at all (except maybe on some extreme case). By checking the list of manual requests one would still be able to tell the obvious canvassing cases from the obvious non-canvassing cases. Still that practice may help to disguise some clever canvassing cases. On top of that, to me, the advantages of the FRS list, as a responder, are that there is guaranteed statistical independence between the requests and my previous opinions. One surely may think of ways of refining who gets asked to participate in what decision, to get better input for the discussions, and better satisfaction for the respondents, but this one is not bad. Also, the FRS list has a limit parameter. To me the occasional reminder to jump in is especially useful given that sometimes I 'forget' about WP for a while, but, for the same reason, I want a small few per month, not as many as someone else wants to. Manual use of the list breaks that functionality. All in all, it may result in *less* feedback, if we keep the manual requests, because maybe some more users don't want to be handpicked, and more often than their desire. I know I don't, so I removed myself from the list. If it is just me, it is a unnoticeable loss, but maybe there are more...? - Nabla (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to, , SarahSV, Legoktm (who discussed it here), and (who used it), (please add anyone I forgot or was not aware of): I removed the sentence ''Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service. You must select editors from the list at random; you cannot pick editors that will be on "your side" in a dispute.'' from the section "Publicizing an RfC". PS: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&diff=709838406&oldid=709290557 diff] - Nabla (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifhell.com
I'd appreciate if somebody would have a look at this and see if it is worth continuing, or if the page will be delted. No point putting more work into something not notable enough to survive. CHeers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gifhell.comPanglossx (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Galaxy World of Alisa
It has come to my attention that certain articles, such as the article for Roger Craig Smith, have been edited to include information on an animated series called "Galaxy World of Alisa". It's apparently based on a Russian children's book character, but a few Google searches don't yield too much. I don't exactly know what to do for this, and I would appreciate it if someone were to help me look into this further so I can figure out whether or not to delete the information from these articles. Mirror Ball (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (Mirror Ball, 10:50, 29 March 2016 [EST])
 * Mirror Ball see Village pump Galaxy World section. Alsee (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Possible conflicting Rfcs
At Time Person of the Year, an Rfc has recently been opened, while another Rfc is still in progress. Both cover the same topic in that article. My question is this. Should the second Rfc's creation, have waited until the first Rfc was judged & closed? If the first were judged & closed, wouldn't that have cancelled the necessity for the second Rfc? I think we might need an administrator to review things there. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think anyone who's interest is piqued by the above will note that the earlier RfC is closed in all but name; no one has participated in some time and the majority implemented its will on the article two weeks ago. It focused on one entry in the list, while the second RfC focuses on the list as a whole, so a guideline of a sort can be established, implemented consistently throughout the list (thus tidying up the present randomness), and explained to readers. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's wrong to have multiple RfCs open on the same topic. One reason is that RfCs often stay technically open forever.  Another is that in the course of gathering comments on a question and discussing them, it often because clear that there is a better question to ask.  Both those reasons appear to apply here.


 * And administrators, qua administrator, don't review things like this. The function of an administrator is to wield powers with which the whole world cannot be trusted, such as the power to block a user, to implement consensus.  Anybody (uninvolved) can close an RfC and if there were consensus that there shouldn't be two related RfCs open at the same time, anyone could delete the one that shouldn't have been opened.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clarify: FWIW Miesianical, if you believed that the first Rfc was already effectively closed? What option did you believe was adopted by it? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If I understand your response today (at your talkpage), you felt that the original Rfc was over with & the result was 🇬🇧 United Kingdom. If that's so? the opening of a second Rfc, might've ended in a result that would've overturned the preceding Rfc's result, in that 🇬🇧 United Kingdom and all other entries flag|countries, would've been deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And there's nothing truly wrong with that outcome, if that's what editors decide. WP:Consensus can change, and sometimes it changes rapidly.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Request Hephtalite
Can anybody check this edit?

RfC: Info prior to a subject relevant?
I added info on Dallon Weekes stating why and when the he was recruited into the band, Panic! at the Disco. Although referenced by in-line citations, a user is reverting the edits due to the info being prior to the subject's recruitment, to which he says is irrelevant to the subject due to the info being prior to is association with the group. Although it is prior to the subject's recruitment, it gives valid, referenced info of the reasons the subject was recruited. Nowhere is info prior to a subject's history with a group forbidden in an article page, especially when it is relevant to the topic.  Sekyaw  (talk)  19:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed your, because this is not the place to hold an RfC - it is the talk page for discussing improvements to the specific page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. An RfC also seems rather strong for your problem, see WP:DR - please raise your concerns at the talk page for the article concerned. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, so sorry I misread instructions on how to do it. My apologies. But, I'm confused on how an RfC seems strong for the situation. I actually went to WP:DR for the situation, but it was left unresolved due to a lack of participation from other editors. When I asked about the current situation, I was suggested to move onto RfC. Thoughts?  Sekyaw  (talk)  21:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, speaking personally, having begun by discussing on the talk page of the article, I might then have posted a neutrally-worded note at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, inviting people to the thread on the article's talk page. More at WP:RFC.
 * But if you really feel that an RfC is necessary, then start one - but again, it should be on the article's talk page, not here (see WP:RFC). At the time that I write this, there are approximately 100 open RfCs, listed and summarised at WP:RFC/A (some are listed twice, in different sections) - notice that the vast majority of them are on the talk pages of articles. Although some RfCs are being held on non-article talk pages, none of those concern one specific article; and none of them are here at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * is the right idea, notice how it now shows on both Requests for comment/Biographies and WP:RFC/A. You might like to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guitarists. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Extending an Rfc after 30-days.
Is it alright for an Rfc to be extended an extra 30-days (see List of state leaders in 2016), just after another editor requested an administrator 'close' the Rfc, with a final decision? GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is fine to leave RfC open as long as editors are still commenting/continued interest. Please see Requests_for_comment Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would go so far as to say it is required to leave an RfC open if editors are still commenting or discussing existing comments. But the time period is not about open/closed.  It's about whether the RfC is listed as active.  Such a listing solicits additional comments.  It's appropriate to extend that listing after someone has requested closure, but an uninvolved editor who takes up that request for closure and believes there is no need for additional comment should go ahead and close the RfC anyway.  Closing the RfC immediately delists it as an active RfC.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Decisions from RFCs aren't "final". RFCs are just normal talk-page discussions with an extra advertisement method.
 * And, yes: end the discussion early if people are done early, and keep it going longer if people still want to talk.  There is no magic 30-day timer.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't an RfC also invite someone to close the discussion (rendering a neutral interpretation of the consensus reached)? With an ordinary talk page discussion, I don't think people expect an uninvolved editor just to come in and close it.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thirty days after the first timestamp, Legobot removes the template and delists it from the relevant RfC listing pages(s). No actual closure is performed, nor is any invitation to close sent out. Closure requests at WP:AN/RFC are all posted manually and this can be done at any time, it doesn't need to be immediately the thirty days have expired. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In case there was any confusion about my "invitation to close" above, I was talking about an invitation implied in the fact that someone listed the RfC. I.e. if there is an open RfC, it means someone would appreciate it if, after sufficient discussion, an uninvolved editor would close the discussion.  And I agree that the 30 day period has nothing to do with it.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "someone" that lists an RfC is almost always (see for example [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies&action=history the history] of Requests for comment/Biographies), and it does so as part of a group of actions that it takes hourly, usually just after setting an rfcid on the  template transclusion. As an example, see my sentence beginning "AFAIK ..." and the first four bullets at User talk:Legobot -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I was using lazy terminology. The "someone" I meant in "someone listed" was the person who adds the  tag to a page, thus indirectly causing an RfC to get listed.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To the extent that many RFCs have been getting needless closing statements through the actions of a single user for several years now, then I expect that some newer editors do expect closing statements now. IMO this is unfortunate; we are effectively teaching them that we don't trust them to be able unable to read and understand the conclusions of their own discussions, while wasting volunteers' time in writing down what everyone already knew (in the best-case scenario; some of these requests have resulted in spectacularly bad closing statements).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there a time limit for admins to change their mind about how they closed an Rfc?
Can closures just be retroactively changed at any time or what? -- Kendrick7talk 01:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Kendrick7, there are no formal rules. We always hope that all editors (admins or otherwise) who conclude that they've made mistakes or could have done better will attempt to improve the situation, regardless of whether those mistakes involved RFCs or any other edit.
 * Also, WP:Consensus can change is still an important policy. One of the structural problems with formal closures is that editors with much less experience than you tend to view closing statements as immutable edicts that must be obeyed.  They aren't.  Consensus can and does change, sometimes quite rapidly.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think doing that opens the door to an appeal of the closure itself (by someone) at WP:AN. Also, even though consensus can change, something must happen, either a sufficient passage of time or something new (a change in MOS, a change in policy, a new reference) to discuss it. It's a wiki after all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anything can be appealed, and it's not (unfortunately) unusual for closing statements to be incomplete or wrong, so that's a good thing. I've seen appeals produce good outcomes (and also bad outcomes), and I've seen back-to-back RFCs result in good outcomes (and accusations of WP:FORUMSHOPping and other problems).  When an RFC is intended to resolve a dispute, there are lots of ways for the process to go wrong, and therefore we need lots of ways for the process to get set straight again.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting point in your third parenthesis there ; see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive923; Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines; and Template talk:Automatic archive navigator -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not forum shopping. I'm trying to see what the general consensus is here on multiple issues (whether talk page archives are free to edit is another, possible more serious one) which of course affect multiple pages.
 * My concern is that by letting editors retroactively and unilaterally change their closures at any time might lead to the appearance of corruption, not to mention the headache it would lead to if closers can simply be endlessly lobbied via their user talk page, etc. to change their mind, months and perhaps even years later. -- Kendrick7talk 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So why do you keep starting new threads on different discussion pages for the same matter? Are you hoping that the pages have different sets of watchers who won't notice? -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Retroactively editing talk page archives is a somewhat different matter; although you're correct that if RfC's may be retroactively changed at any time, the template and talk page archiving policy* would need to be changed to reflect this. -- Kendrick7talk 10:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)*Apparently there's no actual rule against editors changing talk page archives to their heart's content though. I'd look pretty dumb filing an RfC here if I didn't bother to gather that kind of information first, wouldn't I? Hence the importance of fact-finding :)
 * Nothing is final; this is a wiki. WP:Consensus can change is actually a policy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Separate noticeboard for RFCs
Following the discussion at WP:AN roughly here, should we separate RFCs from WP:ANRFC. From that, I think we can debate what should be included in the noticeboard which goes into the other question of "does everything need a formal close?". I don't think we need an AN noticeboard, just a backlog subpage here around WP:RFC. From there, we can just put the RFC backlog as another backlog at ANRFC. I'm just asking for a support or oppose on the basic question of a listing page here and then from there, we can whittle down what is required to be included on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose a separate noticeboard for RfCs. WP:ANRFC says, "The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia." RfCs clearly fall under this noticeboard's scope. A separate noticeboard would be harmful: It likely would lead to RfCs going unclosed because it would be less trafficked than WP:ANRFC. It also would be noticeboard proliferation as satirized at Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the same small group of editors closes most of the RFCs you post, I strongly doubt that changing the location would have any effect on the closing rate (or on the quality of closing statements, or on the value of those statements to participants, or anything else, for that matter). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ANRFC periodically has new closers because of its high visibility (through its partial transclusion on WP:AN). Moving the RfCs to a less-trafficked noticeboard untranscluded on WP:AN would decrease the likelihood of new closers becoming aware of the RfC closure requests. I do not see a benefit to creating a new noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From the description below, the plan is to have exactly as much visibility as the (also partially transcluded) other things in the backlog, e.g., MFD, CFD, etc. The plan does not seem to involve actually removing them entirely.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Requested moves also asks for closers and actually requires admins more than RFCs do and RM just has a single mention of the backlog and sometimes has separate sections if it's like urgent news or something. RFCs are beyond inflated with their separate headers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * RfCs get section headers at WP:ANRFC because WP:ANRFC was created to request closures for RfCs and as noted, RfCs are a special type of discussion used to formally resolve disputes. Whereas requested moves are typically closed even when no users request closure, RfCs are seldom closed when users do not request closure. No compelling reason has been presented here to justify why creating a new noticeboard—which furthers noticeboard bloat—is necessary here. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is your question (approximately) "Shall we put closure requests for RFCs and closure requests for non-RFCs on separate pages?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's more "should we make a single page that contains a 'backlog' or a listing page for RFCs in need of a closuree" more akin to Requested moves? From there, we can just put it as a single backlog at ANRFC at Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure with a short summary when it gets miserable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. So the current contents of the section WP:ANRFC would go on a separate page, that page would not be transcluded to ANRFC, and ANRFC would currently get a note under ==Backlogs== that says something like "Cunard added another 26 expired RFCs to the list yesterday, so there were 78 discussions be closed (or not) now"?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a solution for now. From there, we can argue about what the scope of the board should be. My view is we should require that a participant from the board list it there, no third-party additions, maybe add something to the bot's notice, I don't care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I had been thinking about a bot-delivered message yesterday, maybe something on the originator's talk page that says things like "no magic 30-day timer" and "go here to request a formal close if you need help". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically support. If nothing is going to be done to reign in ANRFC, this is probably the best way forward. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support a separate page listing all unclosed RfCs, with a section to list particularly urgent RfCs at WP:ANRFC similar to XfDs have now. This is the best solution until such a time that a better solution has community consensus. Such a better solution would be requiring participants of the original discussion to list the RfC at ANRFC, keeping in mind that any editor could state their view at any time and then list it if they want a closure. ~ RobTalk 15:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer we explore the route regarding who adds discussions before we look at this proposal; that seems to me to be a greater priority, and may prove more helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that idea could be discussed in a separate section, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but as Ricky81682 and you would be better placed to start that in any case as it would be along the lines of what Ricky81682 said about scope at 5:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC) in response to what you said (I think that is the underlying issue to be addressed, and it seems to me you may have both skipped around it). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The question of who can add it to ANRFC belongs more at WT:ANRFC than here, does it now? It's more of a regulation of ANRFC not RFCs in general and those can be parallel discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think a better solution is to rewrite WP:Admin and WP:RFC to make it clear that uninvolved non-admins are perfectly capable of closing these discussions when admin tools are not needed.--v/r - TP 22:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's pretty clear now. It's explicitly stated at the RFC page. It's the same rules we have for CFD and TFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Update
Is this not a moot question? Administrators'_noticeboard no includes the full set of RFCs into a separate board. We can argue the requirements for that at WT:ANRFC although I've prefer it here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

RFCs about TFDs
Is it acceptable practice to start an WP:RFC about an ongoing WP:TFD? Please see this TfD also, and respond at Template talk:Government misconduct accusations -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC in the section heading
There's been some advice for a while about labeling each discussion as an RFC, in the section heading, e.g., ==RFC about the picture ==. The text says that it is a "very good idea".

I'm currently thinking that this is a kind of bad idea, or at least no better than maybe neutral. On the one hand, it might have a limited number of practical purposes (e.g., a DRN person trying to find "the RFC" in the archives when nobody provides links).

However, it also tends to emphasize the false idea that RFCs are some special beast, rather than a normal talk page discussion for which normal talk page guidelines and normal consensus-based editing policies apply – including the policy that Consensus Can Change, and that "but it was an RFC!" is no defense against a change in consensus.

So I'm inclined to remove it, and leave no particular advice on how to title the section headings. What do you all think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it very helpful to have "RFC" or "RfC" in the section title, when looking for the RfC.
 * I like to think that RfCs *are* special beasts. I and others have this idea, and I would prefer to help make RfCs special beasts than to dilute the respect given to RfCs.  To that end, I think that yes, all RfCs should be formally closed, and in creating RfCs, editors should be asked to do so with more care and respect.
 * I would prefer to emphasize that consensus does not depend on an RfC. RfCs can help, but "Wikipedia makes decisions by concensus", and that principle makes no reference to RfCs.  RfCs are tools.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How often have you looked for an RFC by scanning section headings recently? Most people are clicking on a direct link (e.g., all the people invited to comment via bot) or just scroll down until they see the large rfc template.
 * I spend more time than average looking over RFCs, and I can tell you that I haven't used the table of contents to locate an active RFC in well over a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By searching Talk page archives for "RFC", and scanning the section headings blue linked in the search results, I guess ten times in the last month. It has been an unusually rich month in terms of RfC activities. Over the years, not as frequent, but I definitely do this, at talk page archives and Pump archives. Similarly, for Requested Moves. I Also particularly find it helpful if the section heading contains the date, month and year. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose removing: "It is a very good idea to let the section heading begin with 'RfC' or 'Request for comment', for example 'RfC on beak length' or 'Request for comments on past or present tense for television series'." An RfC is a special type of discussion because "it uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors" and a discussion participant found the issue important enough to create a formal discussion and invite uninvolved editors. However, it also tends to emphasize the false idea that RFCs are some special beast, rather than a normal talk page discussion for which normal talk page guidelines and normal consensus-based editing policies apply – including the policy that Consensus Can Change, and that "but it was an RFC!" is no defense against a change in consensus. – The consensus reached in an RfC should remain in effect until and unless consensus has changed through a new discussion at least as broadly advertised as the RfC. As wrote: "RMs lingering in the backlog without closure are a problem, but at least no one says that RMs do not need closure. RfCs are a community dispute resolution process. If no uninvolved administrator (or other closer) provides a closure, it completely renders the process useless, and becomes merely another forum for involved parties to duke it out without end. RfCs need closure to function, otherwise they do not serve as a dispute resolution venue, merely as a different kind of talk page discussion that will go nowhere." And: "Unclosed RfCs are often a recipe for disaster, and nothing more. Often times, an RfC about a controversial topic will go on, everyone will have said their bit, but it will languish without closure forever. Then, the dispute comes back as there has never been any resolution, which is what a formal closure provides. RfCs should not be left unclosed unless they really are approaching unanimity. Unclosed RfCs are the basis of the continuance of many needless disputes." Cunard (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the consensus reached in an RFC – even if it reflects the whole community's actual consensus at that time, which is not always the case – is permanent, nor even permanent until such a time as a subsequent RFC is held. Consensus changes when consensus changes.  Once consensus has actually changed (e.g., good sources now present different facts), then it really doesn't matter whether the previous one was formed under a section that had an RFC tag at the top or not.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose – If RfCs are not to be treated as anything other than normal talk page discussions, we might as well eliminate them. This is not how the community uses RfCs. They are used as a dispute resolution process to bring outside input into disputes that would otherwise be left to the involved parties. This outside input comes from two places: firstly, from the participants gathered by the feedback request service, and secondly, from the closer. RfCs do have a useful purpose to serve, that is, to allow for questions or disputes to be settled in a formal manner. Please do not render the RfC process even more ineffectual by stripping them of what makes them useful. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all RFCs involve disputes. Not all RFCs have any "involved parties".  Even if we ignore the non-article uses (which are diverse), we get RFCs that say "Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve this article?" or are the first thing ever posted to the talk page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Outside people should be able to find the RFC easily and some talk pages get miserable in their section headings and the like. I highly doubt that the header is the problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't most "outside people" clicking on a link, and therefore not needing to see the header at all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose the proposal and repeat what Ricky81682 said. That is, there are times where the links can falter and an uninvolved user may look at the talk page contents rather than go back and try the link again. Also, when the bot notice is removed after the RfC expires, there is sometimes no other indication that the discussion was an RfC. I think the clarity is helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

To address too many poorly-posed RfCs
Must the same as I just posted at WP:AN, as well as here years ago (User:WhatamIdoing, are you still unconvinced there is any case to improve the use of RfC?)...

There is an obvious backlog of unclosed RfCs. The process is bloated with half-baked unimportant questions that don't lend themselves easily to comment of close. The ability to open an RfC implies that the RfC will be closed (maybe not, but editors think so).

The root of the problem, the real problem, is that there are too many poorly-posed RfCs. I propose that the solution is to require that to open an RfC must involve a seconder. RFC bot will have to be amended to look for two different signatures. At least two people must agree that there is a good reason to ask the question, and that the question posed is a good question. If you can't find a single person to support your RfC question, either:
 * (1) you are wrong (unanimously disagreed with), or
 * (2) WP:3O is more appropriate, and if WP:3O can't produce an experience opinion-giver who agrees that you have a worthy question, most likely you don't, or
 * (3) you seriously need to work on improving your question.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Eh, seems too bureaucratic and CREEP. And I think the tag-team issues this might raise are not worth the candle. Their question was not good enough to get a close, seems like hardly anyone cares about the RfC, which basically takes care of it. And what of the lone editor who has a useful question that would benefit from settlement but now more bureaucracy and networking to find a 'friend'? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Requiring two people to agree (not an the answer, but on the question) is about the smallest possible change, it is hardly bureaucracy. Requiring a submitted RfC question to go through a formal review step, with necessary consequences (finding reviewers, reviewers give feedback, responding to feedback), now that would be bureaucratic.
 * A lone editor with a useful question should ask it. An RfC is a pretty bad first venue for asking a simple question.  Once it is slightly complicated, two people disagreeing, there is WP:3O.
 * Never have I seen two people in disagreement unable to agree on the question when asked to try. Indeed, asking two people to state their opponent position is very productive in disputes.
 * Ultimately, the question is: "It WP:RFC working"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree there is a maddening proportion of requests for comment that are too poorly described (or conceived) to yield any useful comment. But this isn't the solution.  For one thing, I'm not sure what the harm is that you want to address.  When you post a dumb RfC, people don't comment and don't close it.  How different is that from the RfC never getting opened because no one will second it?


 * As a practical matter, it's moot anyway because the person who maintains the Legobot does not respond to most suggestions or even questions about it, and this would be a pretty significant and difficult change.


 * Maybe a better approach would be a process akin to AfD (Articles for Deletion), where someone is welcome to open a dumb RfC and others have a way to shoot it down before it goes too far. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood Bryan. One thing this attempts to solve is the occasional gaming by posing a biased question.  Once people have started answering, the question is locked in.  However, the real problem is the number of poorly conceived RfCs languishing unclosed.  A way to shoot down a stupid question?  Maybe.  We could just close non-productive RfCs as "non-productive - no consensus", as a way to clear the list to reveal the remainder, however that is not treating the problem at its source.  If forcing the solution technically by the bot is hard ... well probably it is better anyway to simply add advice to this page, advise a preliminary step of discussing the RfC question before initiating the RfC.
 * Require a seconder to address too many poorly-posed RfCs
 * Advise RfC initiators to discuss the wording of the question before formally initiating the RfC
 * "Please discuss with at least one other involved party as to whether the proposed RfC question is the right question." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bryan, IMO the main "systems" problem with "a dumb RfC" is that it will get listed at ANRFC and someone probably will try to "close" it, even though the whole thing ought to be ignored (and ANRFC's attention ought to be on things that actually need help). Leaving these RFCs unclosed wouldn't usually be a problem, because they would be ignored.  There's nothing on the talk page that labels something as an RFC after the bot removes the expired template.  But as soon as some editor (usually an editor with too little experience and/or too little knowledge of the subject area) enshrines his idea of the consensus as The Closing Statement for The RFC™, then we have a problem.
 * (The main "real" problem with "a dumb RfC" is that the person who started it probably did want some help with an article, and isn't likely to get it. This isn't something that we can address by changing the rules, however.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we can help this by encouraging a conversation about the problem before the locking in of an RfC question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, in principle, I don't object to requiring a seconder. (I see more problems with anything resembling a requirement to discuss an RFC in advance.)  However, you're thinking about disputes, and sometimes settling disputes isn't the point.  I used the RFC process to solicit opinions at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources a while ago.  I just wanted to know more about what editors think about or care about – no dispute, just an actual request for comments.  I got two comments (feel free to add yours), and just getting comments was exactly what I wanted.
 * I also wonder whether the problem you're trying to address is actually the number of unclosable RFCs, or if it is more specifically the number of unclosable RFCs that someone listed at ANRFC in an effort to have the unclosable get closed anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi WhatamIdoing. The ANRFC certainly prompted me, reminding me of the old idea from four(!) years ago.  Feels like last year.  Obviously you are not the target of this attempt at improvement, as you always write coherently and intelligently.  The problem is ill-conceived, or ill-posed, or generally unfocused questions not really addressing the problem.  I suffered through some of that with an outsider boldly raising RfCs at WT:MfD, around poor questions.
 * At this point, I want to back pedal from "require". I think we would do well to advise some little discussion on what the best question to ask is.
 * I do know that on the occasions I have thought to peruse RfCs to comment, I have ended up frustrated. It is as if RfC questions are often written at the height of one's emotions.  Othertime, the issue is so specific that outsiders (or at least I) require a bit of an introduction to the issue.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that many times, the least productive RFCs seem to have been constructed at the height of the poster's emotional response. Many responses that center on the perceived neutrality of the RFC 'question' also seem to be coming from that place, too.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with a closure along the lines of: "Closed without determination - It seems there is not even agreement as to what the issues underlying this RFC are. I suggest that involved editors start over.  Discuss what issues need to be resolved, and rephrase the question."
 * Not every closure has to resolve the debate... sometimes a closure can help focus the debate, and lay the groundwork for a second RFC where the question is more clearly defined.
 * It would also help if we were to allow potential closers to ask questions (and make it clear that merely asking a question does not make one an "involved editor"). Blueboar (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Another way to sharpen the topic would be to require RFC's to be extensively discussed before being posed and to allow any uninvolved editor to SNOW-close them if they've not been. That's the requirement at all other content DR processes, but is only a suggestion here (if that). It wouldn't guarantee a sharper question, but it would force the participants to have at least sharpened their positions for a bit. I'm not utterly opposed to requiring a second, but it can be easily gamed and, frankly, RFC's are the court of last resort for a lot of disputes which can't be settled through regular discussion or other DR and it may be hard to get seconds on some of those, which will just further encourage disruptive disputes and edit warring. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but responses have reminded me that smaller gentler steps are better. "to require RFC's to be extensively discussed before being posed" sounds too strong, how about starting with "encourage/advise RFC's to be extensively discussed before being posed", which I thing could do it.
 * Regarding the gaming concern, at the moment RfCs are opened unilaterally. The idea is to have at least one other person involved.  Even if that other person is an ideological friend, a second look at the logic of the question, and discouraging of the question being submitted in a hasty moment of emotion, are good things.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add something like that in a moment. Let's see if it helps.
 * Blueboar, as a practical matter, if your "Closed without determination" idea were boxed up in a template, people might be more likely to use it. There was also some talk a while ago about mentioning WP:CCC in the closing templates' boilerplate text.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise." Looks good, thank you.  I'd have gone for something stronger, the imperative "Discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd start small, and see if it helped. Also, I wanted to avoid claims that some RFCs are invalid because you didn't jump through the hoop about discussing the question first.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need a second. I've closed a discussion before remarking that it was incomprehensible (it had something like a-g options with people voting/ranking them like gcdebaf and then a second version so it became g1d2c2b1a2f2 and just chaos). The key was, after spending the miserable time figuring out the mess of it, I started a new RFC in a sensible way right afterwards because the issue wasn't resolved obviously. From there, a result came out fairly quick. I think that's more of a solution, letting the experienced people help direct the question the right way, rather than adding more requirement at the front-end. It's the same reason admins can't just close a discussion, say, at TFD on a userbox and go away: we're supposed to close it, move it to MFD and then let it go in the right location. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, going with that – Does that mean that these "miserable RfC's" can be closed "early"? I know RfC's are supposed to run 30 days – but if after 'x' days, it's clear that the RfC "question" is too bungled to produce a meaningful outcome, can it be "boldly" closed early (and then "replaced" with a new "clean" RfC, as you suggest)? And, if so, should this be added to that RfC instructions, or remain an informal and unwritten "be bold" proposition?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is irksome that a miserable RfC is legislated to be open for thirty days, effectively derailing sensible discussion. We can't have RfC initiators withdrawing RfCs when they don't like the initial responses, nor other involved participants, it effectively requires a super-competent closer to fix a miserable RfC.
 * Ricky, I think we are all now agreeing that a second isn't "needed", instead suggesting that initiators discuss the RfC question before initiating the RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can close RFCs early. And we should, in far more cases than we actually do, especially if they're poorly written.  RFCs are not "legislated to be open for thirty days".  The actual basis of the system is this:  Editors were supposed to remove the RFC tag when they're finished talking about it, but most people forgot.  So we send a bot around to clean up the forgotten RFC tags – which, now that everyone knows about the bot, is almost all of them.  The bot is too limited to figure out whether the discussion is actually done (or even started!), so it has a simple timer-based system.  Editors can and should manipulate the bot's perception of time whenever they want, to extend or shorten the discussion as much as they want.  The important thing is the discussion, not the bot.
 * Also, the initiator is allowed to withdraw the question at any time – 30 seconds after starting, 30 minutes, 30 hours, 30 days, it just doesn't matter when (this is documented in the section on closing). "Withdraw the question" means removing the rfc template, to stop the advertisements.  They're not allowed to blank the discussion (because RFCs are normal discussions with an advertising mechanism, so normal talk page rules apply), but they're allowed to turn off the advertisements whenever they want.  Other editors are not permitted to remove the template, because that has historically led to too many individuals closing RFCs that they expect to "lose".  However, other editors are permitted to persuade the OP to withdraw an RFC through discussion, and this happens fairly often.
 * I've seen many RFCs withdrawn, and it's largely a successful process. Either the initiator got the information he wanted quickly (which often, but not always, involves learning WP:How to lose), or someone decides to try again with a better-written question later (editors often recommend waiting a week or a month before trying again, although there are no actual requirements), or they move on to another, usually more appropriate, dispute resolution process.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to comment that if an RfC has been boldly (and possibly inappropriately) opened by a single editor then I see no harm in reverting this to a normal discussion. I have done this on previous occasions. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the guidelines on writing RfC questions could be clearer and more realistic. When I have attempted to follow the guidelines people have told me I should have done something else.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some specifics would be nice. There are people watching this page who try to make the page more clear and practical, but we're not aware of any place where it isn't already.  (My own opinion is that there is hardly any guidance at all today, so it would be hard to get it wrong).  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Writing requests for comment is where the work on that issue is mostly happening. It's hard.  (Also, just because "people tell you" things doesn't mean that they're right.  WP:Nobody reads the directions.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Five-tilde signatures
, where was the first part of discussed? It directly impinges on by. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it was discussed? I suspect it was not.
 * We could discuss now whether we want five tildes, though, if you want. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Something that has apparently stood unchallenged in a high-traffic page like this for five years should not really require proof of prior discussion to be allowed to stay in. It's not like this is MOS:KOREA, which was single-handedly written by one (not banned) user against the majority of English-language usage, and probably never even noticed by the majority of the community until recently.
 * Anyway, when given the choice between four tildes and five, I chose five because the RFC question is not meant to be taken as being in "my voice". I worded it in the most neutral manner possible and in accordance with the prior discussion linked to in my comment below. I would actually prefer people not know that the question was entered by me unless they go back and check the previous discussions, so as not to potentially bias the result. I took this as being the reason I was given the option only to date and not sign the question. But of course I might be wrong.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And no one has actually said proof of prior discussion is required. I can understand why you might infer from RedRose64's simple question that he believes that, but it would be better to let him actually say so before going into a rebuttal.
 * An RfC statement is a post on a talk page, so rules for signatures there should apply. Those rules encourage with wording such as "preferred" and "good practice" signing posts, but allow for special cases.
 * I believe in many cases, an RfC statement works best without attribution. It's supposed to be a neutral statement, and I believe when an RfC follows a dispute, and the person posting the statement is one of the disputants, many commenters will ignore all the words in the stated question except the signature and just read the request as, "Do you agree with my side of the previous debate"?  Too many times, I've seen an RfC discussion veer wide of the simple stated request for comment into a continuation of some previous interpersonal battle.  And that ruins the RfC.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * RfCs are open invitations to anybody to come and have their say. They're advertised in various places, and people coming across these notices are likely to be completely unaware of past history of the topic, including who has previously been involved. On the other hand, people already involved in the topic will probably have the discussion page on their watchlists, so will have been aware of the discussion being started - and who started it. You can't prevent those people from having preconceived bias by simply omitting your user name, because it's right there in in the watchlist entry.
 * There's a list of all open RfCs at WP:RFC/A; that listing is built by, which produces each entry by looking for transclusions of , and copying everything from just after that template down to (and including) the next datestamp. As I write this, every RfC listed at WP:RFC/A has a user signature preceding that datestamp - except for one (it's the one beginning "MOS:KOREA currently says", but it's listed twice because the has both hist and lang). So the accepted normal practice appears to be that the user sig is included with the datestamp. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Giraffedata about the risks of signing. Humans react to social reputation.  If your name is recognized, people may react as much or more to "you" than to "your question".
 * It goes both ways: If you opened an RFC on a tech question, my initial reaction would probably be that, whatever it is, you're right.  It doesn't matter what the precise question is:  I already know that you know more about tech stuff than I do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The question you meant to ask is, "Why, when that sentence was added a few weeks before, did that editor not choose to include both acceptable methods of signing, exactly like the page had long encouraged in its ===Example use of Rfctag=== subsection? (I'm guessing that the answer is "simplicity".)
 * Or you could ask, "Since signing with four tildes was banned as early as June 2005 (and before that, there was neither date nor name on RFCs, and people who "accidentally" signed their requests got yelled at and reverted), was there ever a discussion that supported permitting people to include their names in the RFC question?"
 * However, more usefully to your purpose, IMO the most important use case for adding only a datestamp is when multiple editors have collaborated on writing an RFC question. It'd be silly to have several people spend a long while crafting the "question", and then have it posted as if it were from only one of them.  Hijiri's use case is also important:  editors are humans, and humans are social beings.  The reputation of the person posting the RFC can unfairly influence the results.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that frequent ANI-watchers may be inclined to think I am a North Korean spy, my not signing the question that supposedly (but not really) is related to North-South Korean relations with my name might have been a good idea... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC history
Is there a way to find RfC's a particular user initiated including closed ones? -- Green  C  13:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, because once the template has gone (whether removed by Legobot or an ordinary user), there is nothing to identify the erstwhile RfC as being a (former) RfC. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok found what I was looking for by doing a Google search: "user name" "RfC" site:en.wikipedia.org .. where "user name" is the screen display name (not User:name). Worked well enough, probably not totally accurate since it depends on Google caching the page and the section header to start with "RfC: Question..". Leaving method here in case anyone wants it. -- Green  C'  22:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That assumes that the initiator of the RfC has put the string "RfC:" into the section header, which is not mandatory, it's also not a widespread convention. If you look at some of the RfCs linked from WP:RFC/A you will find plenty that don't. For example, the very first one listed, Talk:Gary Cooper, has a section heading "Anderson Lawler". Then there are the ones where a section was created some time before the was added, so the first signature in the thread is not necessarily that of the RfC initiator. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What you may have to do is go through the talk page history and look at the difs around the relevant dates that the RFC took place. It is time consuming... But you will find a record of every edit... Including when a formal RFC was initiated. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus met?
Has a consensus at this RfC (The Dark Side of the Moon) and this one (Axis: Bold as Love) been met? Can either be closed with a determination by an uninvolved editor? I've listed the discussion twice, and it's just let to expire without closure. Dan56 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * RFC's generally remain open for 30 days, and both of those are far short of that and the !votes which have come in so far are not close to a SNOW closure. Late opinions frequently come in. When it gets close to 30 days if there is not an obvious result that no one could reasonably argue about, list it in the appropriate section at AN, not here, to request a closure. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad. I now see that they ran out and expired and you relisted them. I'd suggest reverting your relistings and request closings at AN. If you don't revert your closings, then another 30 days will run. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Dan56, the directions at WP:RFC tell you how to close RFCs. Do you really need some uninvolved editor to write a closing statement?  The important thing is that people have agreed on how to edit the article, not that they get a bunch of templates added to the discussion.  If you all have agreement, then you should stop waiting for some bureaucratic process and get back to editing.  The main value of the bureaucratic process is when the alternative to "waiting" is "risking an edit war".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

question
is the closer's decision binding? --HamedH94 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Briefly, yes, unless the decision is modified by the closer or successfully appealed (see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for details). Other factors may also apply, e.g. if the decision is clearly out of date, if another RfC comes to a different conclusion (although starting a duplicate of a recently closed RfC is a bad idea), if sockpuppetry is discovered after the fact, etc. Do you have a particular closure that you'd like to ask about? <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 10:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * no, we still got about 20 days until closure. i just wanna know the guidelines. another q: can an rfc closure in one article be used as a reference for other similar articles? --HamedH94 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally, no. Each article stands on its own. For a principle to apply across a group of articles or subjects, you generally need to make it a policy or guideline. It that regard, it needs to be remembered that standards set for a subject-matter group of articles at a Wikiproject such as WikiProject Bridges or WikiProject Radio are merely advisory and are not binding unless they have clearly been made to be a policy or guideline, see CONLIMITED. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC) PS: Another way to make a principle applicable across a range of articles is to post at each of the talk pages that a RFC affecting all of them is occurring at one of them and link to that RFC. Moreover, if a group of articles have about the same constituency of editors then a decision at one of them may in effect be binding on all of them on the principle that to refile the RFC at each of them would simply be disruptive since the same editors will simply reach the same result every time. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's misleading to call what the closer provides a decision, because an RfC is about comments, not arbitration. What the closer does is interpret the comments received.  Ideally, that includes describing a consensus of involved parties, which should put a dispute to rest.  But that's not the same thing as rendering a ruling on a dispute, which is what "decision" sounds like.  But if the question is, "is a closer's interpretation binding", I agree with the answer above.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, thanks Bryan. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More generally: Nothing on the English Wikipedia is binding unless it comes with an explicit statement that it is mandatory (e.g., several legal policies), enforcement via software (e.g., the spam blacklist), or a statement from ArbCom that the decision will stand for a certain period of time (usually six months, but sometimes it's been as much as three years).
 * Specifically with respect to RFCs: Anybody can write a closing statement for an RFC – even a kid who doesn't even have an account.  The closer may misunderstand the question or may fail to address important issues.  The closer may be biased or have no understanding of our policies.  The closer may think his job is to cast a deciding vote, rather than to summarize what other people said.  All of these create problems.
 * So while, overall, as a purely general idea, we want and need editors to respect the closers' summaries, in practice, when the closers make mistakes, we want the mistakes corrected. (Also:  Do you really need a closing statement?  Especially if you started the RFC and the answer is "everyone disagrees with me", then your best approach is to show the other editors that you know WP:How to lose with grace, and close it yourself with a note that says you'll go along with them.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassed from starting an RFC
Hello. Could someone please let us know if it is normal for RFCs to be blocked at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 when Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 has some? The threat reads, "proposing editors are free to file an RfC but have been cautioned that doing so might be considered tendentious." Obviously I am not interested in starting an RFC if we accept the double standards.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you care to respond? This is, of course, in regard to your close at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 03:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC) (RFC talk page stalker)


 * Of course it's not normal to block RFCs on one article when they aren't blocked on a similar article. In fact, it's not normal to block an RFC at all, and I'm not even sure what it means to block an RFC.  I looked at the Clinton campaign talk page - mainly the Seddique Mateen section - and didn't see any blocking.  All I saw was one editor arguing that an RFC would not be appropriate, while clearly acknowledging that someone who wants to open an RFC can do so (from the quote above, "proposing editors are free to file an RfC ...").  I hope you don't think that editor has some kind of authority to decide if an RFC can be opened.


 * While I think User:Wikidemon has a good point about sparing the community an RFC that's simply not going to generate a useful result, if all you're getting from his posts on the subject is that you're being harassed, intimidated, or oppressed, then you should by all means open the RFC, because none of those things can be allowed to control an editor's behavior. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Gay bash[ing]" is a serious accusation. If that is happening, I would sincerely like to see it dealt with. Can you provide a diff? Graham (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not interested in playing into their drama. I want nothing to do with them. But I think another editor should start the RFC(s). At least the only about Mateen. It's a good one by the way, because we are dealing with facts, not weasel words like Trump's ongoing RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We've gone through this before, – don't make baseless assertions you're unwilling or unable to back up with evidence. If you aren't going to provide diffs and 'gay bashing' is yet another baseless assertion, please strike the comment. Graham (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You can't make an allegation like that and then ask to be left alone when someone asks which comment you're referring to (or any other evidence of your accusation). Either provide a diff or strike the comment. Graham (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor, in my quick take a kind hearted and sincere human being, is having some serious issues with editing the encyclopedia. They're promoting some fringe theories for inclusion in the article about Clinton's relationship with the father of the Orlando shooter, and variously flopping, accusing, and feeling hurt about the community's efforts to respond. The problem with starting farfetched and pointless RfCs about non-core issues, two months before the US Presidential election, is twofold. First, it is only two months before the election and an RfC takes a month to close except in SNOW cases. Thus, these RfCs will not be resolved at a rate that is useful for generating encyclopedic content. Second, there's been a recent upsurge in election-relate RfCs, on all political fronts, by individual editors who do not immediately gain consensus for their fringe-y or off-center proposal. This has happened in may election-related articles irrespective of political affiliation, and seems to undermine community sanctions. It seems that some editors have found a new way to game the system. An RfC is supposed to be a near-last step in content dispute resolution, not the first thing to do by an editor who proposes something that does not gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidemon: You are being extremely condescending. Please stop. I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade and I do not need to be harassed by you like that. It's not fringe at all to include the fact that the Orlando shooter's father, who said he thought homosexuality would be "punished by God" after his son had committed the second deadliest terrorist attack on US soil by killing members of the LGBTQ community, was invited to Clinton's campaign rally and said she would be good for national security. This content addition was rejected by some editors on the talkpage, so User:The Four Deuces, User:Broter and I wanted to start an RFC. Then Wikidemon closed the discussion and threatened us if we started an RFC. As I said, I feel gay bashed, bullied and bruised by this behavior, and I will take a break from editing about politics. This has definitely had a chilling effect on my editing. But I would like another editor to start the RFC for us because WP:UNCENSORED.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be friendly and kind in face of some out of bounds editing efforts. I read your participation here as most likely sincere, despite many other accounts that have clearly not been legitimate. Your comments about the LGBTQ issues here reflect reasonable and legitimate concerns that someone might have observing world events, but not aligned with the encyclopedia's mission. If there were some sinister sub-plot involving Clinton inviting the father or the Orlando shooter to her rally because she had a hidden agenda against gay rights, and the secret service detail being in on a plot to admit anti-gay Muslim hate speech advocates, that sort of thing would have to be developed first by sourced content in the article itself, and if due weight were established, in the lede. It wouldn't and it won't, because this is a fringe anti-Clinton talking point. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not what the RFC would be about. Nobody knows why he was invited to the rally. We are simply trying to relay the following facts: The Orlando shooter's father, who said he thought homosexuality would be "punished by God" after his son had committed the second deadliest terrorist attack on US soil by killing members of the LGBTQ community, was invited to Clinton's campaign rally and said she would be good for national security.. Those are facts. Yes, Wikipedia should not censor LGBTQ-related topics. This is not Homophopedia. Could someone else please start the RFC? I have had enough of being harassed.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If an RFC were to be held, I would oppose the addition.  Whenever there is a debate about whether to add some factoid (or not) to an article, I always examine the factoid's historical significance within the context of the article's topic... I ask whether the material is likely to still be in the article five years from now. In the context of the article about the Clinton campaign, the historical significance of this factoid is all but non-existant. The fact that a bigoted asshole attended a Clinton rally  (and expressed support for Mrs. Clinton) will not be seen by historians as being of any lasting significance.  His attendance and opinion has had no impact on the campaign. No voters  changed how they view the candidate due to this factoid.  Those who support Mrs. Clinton still support her.  Those who oppose her still oppose her. Fence sitters are still sitting on the fence.  It is unlikely that historians will consider this factoid to be of any lasting significance.  So... if added to the article, I think it highly likely that it will be removed as a triviality in some future rewrite. And thus, I reach the conclusion that it should not be added now.  Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the RfC were to be held, I also would oppose the addition, for the reasons given, and so would most editors. If it should be added, it should certainly wait until after the election and probably a couple years after that, and if it still has legs then we can talk about it (we have to take the long view here). Since the RfC is not going to succeed anyway, why not just let it go and move on to something constructive. Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, this is veering way off-topic for this section and this page. Per the topic, I really can't see how Zigzig20s can feel harassed or believe someone is blocking an RfC, but I believe him when he says he wouldn't be comfortable opening an RfC on the matter at hand.  And from reading the discussion, I think the topic is appropriate for an RfC - it's a basic notability question, and those always have wide-ranging perspectives, and we've seen several people on both sides so far.  This is just what RfCs are good for.  Therefore, I have opened an RfC.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC bot not working correctly?
Can someone tell me why the RfC bot isn't picking up this RfC? I opened it yesterday and waited almost a full day. I now removed and reinserted the text, but still no luck. Thanks. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a "RfC bot", there is . It's not picking up that RfC because the sort order of is screwy (it goes D, 0-9, G, A, B, C, E, F, H ...), which in turn is because of this update. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't really understand what exactly is going on there. Will this issue be automatically fixed when the script is done, or do I have to do something? Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 11:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I wrote the above, more letters have changed their positions, and the full sequence is presently C, D, 0–9, G, A, B, E, F, H, R, I, J, S, L, M, N, O, P, T, U, V, W. Clearly it's changing by the hour, and once it resolves itself as 0-9, A, B, C ... U, V, W - if not sooner - I firmly expect Legobot to detect that RfC. It will then carry out the appropriate actions, i.e. adding an rfcid and listing it on Requests for comment/History and geography and Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law; and the next time that 04:00 (UTC) is reached, it will be listed on some user pages as well. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Now A, C, D, E, 0–9, F, G, L, B, H, R, I, J, S, M, N, O, P, T, U, V, W. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC bot not listing page?
It's been over 24 hours since the RfC at Talk:List of bus routes in London was started? Is there a problem with the bot, or the fact I listed it under a level 3 header? I can see from above that something was up; has it been fixed? jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been four days since the Rfc at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color started. Is this going to be a permanent difficuly, or is it likely to be fixed soon? In the meantime, is there anything that I can do?--Neve–selbert 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , any news on the question I left you at User talk:NeilN? -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The bot seems to be working now, thank-you.--Neve–selbert 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add Warfare topic area
Warfare topic area is one of the fastest-growing and most edited areas of Wikipedia. But there is no separate topic area defined for this in RfC process. Mostly these articles are sorted under society, politics, law, government, biography, and history topic areas. At FRS, LegoBot requests the users who have added their name to these topic areas. Sometimes the user may not be experts in the field. So I propose for creation of separate topic area for warfare related articles, so that they requests can be addressed more accurately and effectively. Many users form military history project will be interested in participating if the area is created. GAN also has a separate section for Warfare related articles. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 08:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's purely a warfare-related matter, it might be best conducted as a normal discussion at WT:MILHIST; if it's just about one article, discuss on the article's talk page with a notice posted to WT:MILHIST. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that where there's a Wikipedia project, as here, an RfC category is redundant. The only reason you'd need FRS is if you want to reach more people than watch the project talk page, and in that case, you'd need to put the RfC in a broader category than the project's subject.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I screwed up...
I have just crafted an RfC regarding a film article here, but it is displaying as unsorted. Have I failed to do something? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You used mediat instead of media. Also (not related), there needs to be a timestamp, the absence of which caused the . When the first of these, I removed the rfcid to force Legobot to remove the entry from Requests for comment/Unsorted otherwise it would have persisted for thirty days. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Redrose64, thanks so much for helping to unsmudge my screwup. It would be a real helpful thing if there was a step by step process to do this the right way. I tried to follow the RfC pasge's instructions, but maybe it could be made a bit more clear - like the sort of input that one does when filling in a cite template in an article. Anyhoo, thanks again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Status of this page
Is this a policy or a guideline or what?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Obviously not, at least not per se, but it shares some characteristics of policies and guidelines. It's actually a process page like Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, ANI, and many others, where the community has tacitly agreed to allow those noticeboards and processes to set a series of rules under which they are to operate and which can, if sufficiently abused, result in sanctions being imposed. A more specific question might provide a clearer result. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in reading WP:PGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)